train
stringlengths 219
46.1k
|
|---|
### Human: CMV: The Flash is the most broken, op hero ever.### Assistant: This was recently addressed. Specifically in Titans, Wally West (yes the one you are referencing) has to do an incredible feat of speed. In the comic he says he usually avoids reaching for that much speed because the further he reaches into the speed force(ie the faster he goes) the more likely it is to swallow him, like Barry in Crisis on Infinite Earths. The only thing keeping him out is focus and a "lightening rod." Kill Linda Park and he will lose both.### Human: I'm pretty sure the Wally West he's referring to is the pre-crisis aged-up one.### Assistant: Yes, I know. He was recently brought back from the speed force in DC Universe #1 Rebirth.### Human: Yeah, he took the moniker The Flash in the current Rebirth-verse,secretly gave Iris flowers, etc...
But he currently has not expressed the capabilities he did pre-crisis.### Assistant: It's the same dude. Superman doesn't lose feats just because he hasn't performed them in a while.### Human: He's the same age as when he was Kid Flash though, which would be before those feats### Assistant: He's not actually. He's aged up plenty. He just had his old costume on for reasons. It's literally just Preflashpoint Wally West.### Human: Wait what? What about that whole conversation about everyone having been aged down a bit? I don't have the comic handy on me unfortunately, but if any onlooker does, I'd appreciate the input### Assistant: Nobody is aged down. In fact the implication is everyone is older than originally thought. Dr. M "stole" ten years. In those ten years, all kinds of friendships were developed and love and history. For instance he "stole" the years where Oliver and Dinah were meant to meet and fall in love. He also stole the years of the OG Titans. |
### Human: CMV: Owning a gun doesn't actually makes you safer.### Assistant: You can shoot people when you have a gun, case closed.### Human: In most situations shooting people causes more problems than it solves.### Assistant: You didn't ask how many problems it creates, you asked whether it makes the carrier safer. We're not talking about whether it makes other people less safe.### Human: Causing problems makes you less safe.### Assistant: Well it depends what problems. If I live in a cabin in the woods, certainly having a gun makes me safer. Your three examples are very specific. In general, the reason people arm themselves is to protect themselves. |
### Human: CMV: A same-sex marriage ban should qualify as sex discrimination### Assistant: Let me preface this by saying I am for same-sex marriage. The following response is purely academic.
From a purely technical standpoint, I disagree because it isn't denying rights based on sex, but based on sexuality. I say that because:
-Dude A is your standard straight guy.
-Dude B likes dudes. Good for him.
Both possess the right to marry a female. The law not accounting for the fickle concepts of "love" and "sexual preference", both have completely equal rights in the eyes of the law. And I realize that part of the problem you pose might be because it discriminates against the couple based on sex grounds, but the nature of law is not that it infringes on the rights of couples in this case. It infringes on individual the rights of Bryan and Cole to get married to someone they love-a right not truly established, in my opinion. I will confess that I have no law degree and my logic is not infallible.
Summary: Gay and straight people have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex (whether or not they want to is a different matter). As this is a universal right, regardless of sex, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not inherently sex discrimination.### Human: I appreciate the response. I had to reread your comment a few times to understand it (excuse my brain deadness due to finals). I want to make sure I'm stating your argument correctly. Basically, you're arguing that bans on same-sex marriage aren't cases of sex discrimination because all persons have the equal right marry someone of the opposite sex?### Assistant: Yes. Sorry if my wording got confusing.### Human: But what if I want to marry someone of the same sex because I'm attracted to them? In that case, you are forbidding such a union on the basis of sex since the law only recognizes heterosexual arrangements. Sure, I can marry a person of the opposite sex no problem, but my issue isn't that heterosexual marriage laws prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, rather same-sex bans prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the same sex who serves the functional equivalent of a person of the opposite sex, a relationship that should be recognized under the law.### Assistant: > But what if I want to marry someone of the same sex because I'm attracted to them?
Hetero and homosexuals are allowed equal access to heterosexual marriage.
Legal or not, homo and heterosexuals enjoy equal access to homosexual marriages under the law.
Ergo no discrimination. Your love or attraction are not taken into account.
_______
Please note I support marriage equality. (If that wasn't clear)### Human: I think it has to do with framing. A guy and a girl have equal rights to marry the opposite sex (sexuality frame). Thus it's not discrimination.
A guy and a girl have unequal rights to marry a girl (gender framing), thus it's discrimination.
From my perspective is pretty clear the "spirit" of the law is under the sexuality framing.### Assistant: (for the sake of conversation and rhetoric, not arguing from personal viewpoint)
Marriage, in the "western" sense of the word, has traditionally been defined as mixed-gender union. Laws generally reflect(ed) this.
Much as bacon is available to Muslims, vegetarians, and Jews - "traditionally" defined marriage is available to everyone.
If an individual was denied the right to a heterosexual marriage because they were a homosexual, that would be sex discrimination.### Human: >If an individual was denied the right to a heterosexual marriage because they were a homosexual, that would be sex discrimination.
That would be discrimination based on sexual orientation. They would have had a right denied to them (the right to heterosexual marriage) based on their orientation. |
### Human: CMV: The GOP's Secret Science Bill requiring EPA to make studies publicly available is a good thing.### Assistant: >The bill recognizes that studies with personal data should have proper redaction.
[The bill makes no such provision.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1030/text) As a result, the bill functionally serves as a ban on the EPA using public health studies to inform its policy decisions.
>The only major flaw I can see is that it would be to costly under the current budget for the EPA. But is that a big enough flaw to make this bill a bad one?
The additional requirements would cost an additional $250 million to implement, according to the [CBO](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49443)... assuming the EPA ***halves*** the number of studies it looks at each year. The bill offers $1 million in funding to accomplish this task, making it essentially a $499 million budget cut at the EPA on the heels of a $310 million budget cut going into FY 2015—in aggregate, cutting the organization's budget by 10%.
That's enough of a flaw to make it apparent that this isn't a bill about scientific openness, it's a bill about choking the EPA to death on red tape.
Plus, this was passed hand-in-hand with [HR 1029](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1029/text)—a bill that removes the conflict-of-interest restrictions from having heads of major corporations advise the EPA, but explicitly prohibits individual scientists from advising the EPA on their own work.### Human: According to this article, the bill ["specifically states previous laws, such as privacy statutes, must be considered."](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-republicans-passed-bill-to-unmask-epas-secret-science-but-will-senate-gopers/article/2562937)
So you are right, it doesn't say anything about redaction, but isn't redaction a realistic option since DHHS offers guidance on redaction for medical studies?
I appreciate the context you provided, a 10% budget cut and stripping conflict-of-interest from advisory boards really would choke the EPA. Great information. ∆### Assistant: > but isn't redaction a realistic option since DHHS offers guidance on redaction for medical studies
Not when this bill explicitly says otherwise.### Human: It explicitly states that the data cannot have redactions?### Assistant: > The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action **unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is.. publicly available online** in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.
-- https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1030/text
That looks pretty explicit to me.### Human: Personally identifiable information and scientific and technical information are not one in the same.### Assistant: Without full access to the case records, the information cannot be independently analyzed or reproduced. |
### Human: I believe official misconduct (such as political corruption, accepting brides, judicial or prosecutorial misconduct,police brutality etc) should be capital offense because they undermine the rule of law and breed contempt for modern society, deteriorating the lives of all. CMV### Assistant: >These values are critical to the acceptance of both the rule of law and the system itself to the individual. Since no one would accept a system which acts with indiscriminate indifference to the values of fairness.
Who gets to define fairness? If we're just calling it "a system people would accept", then a lot of systems can fall under the definition of "fair".
>A republic is designed in such a way that a fraction of the population controls the entire population.
This is true of all governments, "a fraction of" is meaningless. What situation do you consider ideal here?
>To violate these rules and to act in self interest against principles of fairness, instead of the interest of society causes contempt for modern society because the system becomes unjust.
Much of our society is based around the concept that acting in self interest *is* acting in the interest of society. These two concepts are not always in opposition, although it is possible for them to be. Furthermore, it isn't the acting in self interest that causes contempt, but rather the lack of repercussion.
> I believe instead the best people would become public servants. Only those with the highest ethical integrity and confidence in their abilities would serve. And they would do so with little to no rational fear of being accused of such conduct, because they are of sound moral principle.
The problem is that this relies on a personal definition of morality to protect from a societal one. Few people believe they're doing wrong as they do it because their definition of "wrong" clashes with the societal definition. I would posit that many of our current leaders and legislators already fit the definition of confident and sound in moral principle by their own internal definition (the one you want them to guide themselves by). Your solution (much harsher punishments for violating societal trust) would probably have the desired effect of getting people into office whose external morals more closely mirror society's, but it'll be because of an external attempt to appeal to the populace, not guidance from within.
> **If the continuity of the system is the highest priority**, people who serve it, should be held to the highest standard.
It isn't the highest priority. In fact, this is one of the most basic concepts of modern society. The system doesn't matter, if it becomes dangerous or detrimental you throw it away and remake it. The people matter. "The system must perpetuate itself at all costs" is the very concept that modern societies tried to rid themselves of when trading theocracies and monarchies for democracies and republics.### Human: >Who gets to define fairness? If we're just calling it "a system people would accept", then a lot of systems can fall under the definition of "fair".
I'm arguing that people are accepting this system under the premise that it is fair. And that most people believe that it is infallibly fair. Which is why nearly everyone who is imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit says they couldn't believe "the system had failed them."
I think that the user base on here is a lot more well read and accepts that the system has severe and repeatable flaws. So watching a show on such a thing, this user base would not be surprised.
So if I understand your argument correctly, you're stating this system is accepted with it's flaws and deemed fair.
But I am arguing that people have accepted this system under the misguided belief that it holds fairness and justness much higher in ideal than it practices. And as people are becoming more educated they are figuring this out more and it's causing contempt or outright rejection of the system.
>This is true of all governments, "a fraction of" is meaningless. What situation do you consider ideal here?
I'm not rejecting minority rule, but putting emphasis on the fact that having such great power means that you are held to a much higher standard because your choices have serious implications on the entire population.
>Much of our society is based around the concept that acting in self interest is acting in the interest of society. These two concepts are not always in opposition, although it is possible for them to be. Furthermore, it isn't the acting in self interest that causes contempt, but rather the lack of repercussion.
I don't disagree. Which is why I believe it should be a capital offense. Then we wouldn't see acting in self interest in this case as a failure of the system, because its punishment corrects this imbalance.
>would probably have the desired effect of getting people into office whose external morals more closely mirror society's, but it'll be because of an external attempt to appeal to the populace, not guidance from within.
Can you expand on this. I think I see where you're going but don't want to misappropriate your opinion.
>It isn't the highest priority. In fact, this is one of the most basic concepts of modern society. The system doesn't matter, if it becomes dangerous or detrimental you throw it away and remake it. The people matter. "The system must perpetuate itself at all costs" is the very concept that modern societies tried to rid themselves of when trading theocracies and monarchies for democracies and republics.
Ideally, yes. On a practical level, I don't see this as an accepted value at all. Not people in office and not the general population.### Assistant: >So if I understand your argument correctly, you're stating this system is accepted with it's flaws and deemed fair.
Not at all. My issue was that you were deeming it fair, but not giving any definition or source for an authority who can deem it fair. You're now saying "it is fair because the populous believes so" which isn't a logical basis for calling it fair, but definitely clarifies your stance. We're not using some kind of universal value of fairness, then, we're using a concept that could popularly be described as fairness in this society.
>I'm not rejecting minority rule, but putting emphasis on the fact that having such great power means that you are held to a much higher standard because your choices have serious implications on the entire population.
My issue wasn't with minority rule, just that "a fraction of" doesn't imply minority rule, majority rule, outside rule, or non-rule, it is just a meaningless statement that doesn't really help to define this particular society. Your point was "our government is a government" and therefore doesn't really support a viewpoint one way or another.
>I don't disagree. Which is why I believe it should be a capital offense. Then we wouldn't see acting in self interest in this case as a failure of the system, because its punishment corrects this imbalance.
Fair enough. The implication here was that self-interest led to injustice which led to perceptual unfairness. In actuality, injustice leads to perceptual unfairness regardless of what actually causes that injustice.
>Can you expand on this. I think I see where you're going but don't want to misappropriate your opinion.
My point here was that if your desired endstate is politicians that more closely adhere to the pressures of society, then punishing politicians with the death penalty will probably be at least somewhat effective. If your goal is to have politicians that follow an internal moral compass, or even follow their own education and experience, your solution would not be effective because the ideals of individuals will never perfectly match up with society. The downside of this is that letting society-at-large dictate legislation instead of individuals with the support of society tears down the entire reason to have politicians in the first place. We're supposed to have elected experts in place to support the interests of society without simply having mob rule.
>Ideally, yes. On a practical level, I don't see this as an accepted value at all. Not people in office and not the general population.
So we're running into an issue of the divide between "how it otterbee" and "how it is" again. There's nothing wrong with being realistic, but you can't then use that particular notion to support "the highest standard". If the ultimate goal of government is in support of the people and not in support of the institution I'm of the opinion that those who wield the power of government should be held to high standards. However, that power rests with voters, not legislators.
How does your argument support the death penalty for a legislator due to their poor decisions but not the voter due to their poor decision in electing the legislator?### Human: >Not at all. My issue was that you were deeming it fair, but not giving any definition or source for an authority who can deem it fair. You're now saying "it is fair because the populous believes so" which isn't a logical basis for calling it fair, but definitely clarifies your stance. We're not using some kind of universal value of fairness, then, we're using a concept that could popularly be described as fairness in this society.
Are you arguing that the system does not present itself as fair?
>My issue wasn't with minority rule, just that "a fraction of" doesn't imply minority rule, majority rule, outside rule, or non-rule, it is just a meaningless statement that doesn't really help to define this particular society. Your point was "our government is a government" and therefore doesn't really support a viewpoint one way or another.
You are over generalizing government. Not all governments are run in a fashion that consists of very small portions of the population running it for others or having such enormous power of corruptibility. My point is in a republic specifically, this is very important. Most forms of government run this way, like you say.
So we don't disagree here, but I think it's worth mentioning, while you're angle is "this is to be assumed of governments."
>My point here was that if your desired endstate is politicians that more closely adhere to the pressures of society, then punishing politicians with the death penalty will probably be at least somewhat effective. If your goal is to have politicians that follow an internal moral compass, or even follow their own education and experience, your solution would not be effective because the ideals of individuals will never perfectly match up with society. The downside of this is that letting society-at-large dictate legislation instead of individuals with the support of society tears down the entire reason to have politicians in the first place. We're supposed to have elected experts in place to support the interests of society without simply having mob rule.
This is not a construct which imposes the will of trivial or even detailed issues of morality on the people who run it. Only that breaching established principles of fairness is an egregious offense.
This doesn't mean you aren't able to do your job or to legislate for policies that may be considered unfair even to a majority. This is again for clear violations of established boundaries.
Accepting bribes, fabricating evidence, withholding evidence etc. Things that are demonstrable and codified as perverting the system.
>How does your argument support the death penalty for a legislator due to their poor decisions but not the voter due to their poor decision in electing the legislator?
Because that voter isn't serving millions of people with their conduct and destroying the value system which keeps the system cohesive and appealing.### Assistant: >Are you arguing that the system does not present itself as fair?
Again it depends on perspective and definition of "fair". I was never raised with the impression that our system was fair by any kind of universal standard, but that it was "the most fairness money can buy", with all that entails.
>You are over generalizing government. Not all governments are run in a fashion that consists of very small portions of the population running it for others or having such enormous power of corruptibility. My point is in a republic specifically, this is very important. Most forms of government run this way, like you say.
You're missing the point here. 0/1 is a fraction, 1/1 is a fraction, 95/100 is a fraction. "Some fraction" having the power could mean all, or none, or a majority, or a minority. A fraction is a format of presenting numbers, it doesn't mean anything. The statement is meaningless.
>This is not a construct which imposes the will of trivial or even detailed issues of morality on the people who run it. Only that breaching **established principles of fairness** is an egregious offense.
This is why the definition of fairness is so vital to this discussion. Who establishes the principles of fairness? Society? What if society considers accepting bribes, fabricating evidence, etc. to be "fair play"? This is the case in many nations throughout the world. You're taking "this conduct is fair and this other conduct is unfair" as a given based on your own cultural background, but it isn't a given. By compelling legislators to conform to societal norms or face death, you're very much pushing for mob rule. In a society that hates and fears a certain ethnicity, for instance, a legislator could face execution for employing that ethnicity people in their staff.
>Because that voter isn't serving millions of people with their conduct and destroying the value system which keeps the system cohesive and appealing.
In the sense that legislator power is entirely derived from voter power, they are. Voters are ultimately responsible for the people they allow to make decisions on their behalf.### Human: > Again it depends on perspective and definition of "fair". I was never raised with the impression that our system was fair by any kind of universal standard, but that it was "the most fairness money can buy", with all that entails.
You were raised by atypical parents who were very pragmatic. Most people never even reach a point in their life to understand this. Or they have a limited and conflicted understanding of concepts like this.
Can you agree that most people understand the system to be infallibly fair?
>You're missing the point here. 0/1 is a fraction, 1/1 is a fraction, 95/100 is a fraction. "Some fraction" having the power could mean all, or none, or a majority, or a minority. A fraction is a format of presenting numbers, it doesn't mean anything. The statement is meaningless.
Ohhhkkkay... you're losing me now. Now you're debating the use of the term "fraction" to denote a small portion. This is just word usage, and generally accepted usage at that. Are you foreign?
>This is why the definition of fairness is so vital to this discussion. Who establishes the principles of fairness? Society? What if society considers accepting bribes, fabricating evidence, etc. to be "fair play"?
If society felt that way and it was codified that way, it would be fair. But no one feels that way and it's codified as wrong.
> This is the case in many nations throughout the world.
This is addressing the United States.
>By compelling legislators to conform to societal norms or face death, you're very much pushing for mob rule.
Not norms, just the laws they swore to uphold and honor.
>In a society that hates and fears a certain ethnicity, for instance, a legislator could face execution for employing that ethnicity people in their staff.
Okay this post isn't addressing third world nations. I know there are a lot of people from all over the world here, but these discussions are for all intents and purposes addressing the United States.
>In the sense that legislator power is entirely derived from voter power, they are. Voters are ultimately responsible for the people they allow to make decisions on their behalf.
Not addressing the spirit of the debate.### Assistant: >Can you agree that most people understand the system to be infallibly fair?
Almost nobody has failed to have a negative experience where the system is unfair, and it isn't standard practice to teach our children that the system is fair. So, no, I don't agree that most people think the system is infallibly fair. Either through experience or indoctrination, the widely held belief is that it is not fair by universal standards. I think most people believe it is the most fair system that can viably exist for our society, and I don't believe that to be an inaccurate assessment.
>Ohhhkkkay... you're losing me now. Now you're debating the use of the term "fraction" to denote a small portion. This is just word usage, and generally accepted usage at that. Are you foreign?
I'm not from outside of the US, if that is what you mean. "Foreign" on the internet is a tricky term. That said, I've never heard "fraction" be used equivalent to "a small percentage" or even "a minority".
>If society felt that way and it was codified that way, it would be fair. But no one feels that way and it's codified as wrong. This is addressing the United States.
That is the problem, *lots of people feel that way*. Globally, a majority likely do, even within the US it isn't outside reason that a culture shift could make bribery "okay" again.
>Okay this post isn't addressing third world nations. I know there are a lot of people from all over the world here, but these discussions are for all intents and purposes addressing the United States.
Putting aside the fact that CMV doesn't innately have a nationality, the idea that the US is so infallible that our policies don't need to take into account human rights issues we've only barely conquered (and ones we've yet to see) is ludicrous. "We don't need to worry about racism because this is the US" one of the most shortsighted ideas that has appeared on CMV.
>Not addressing the spirit of the debate.
I'm not sure what you want here. You're arguing in favor of treating politicians like rulers instead of elected representatives and trying to take the responsibility for governance from the hands of the people. |
### Human: CMV: If you decide not to vaccinate your kids with the recommended schedule, you should pay extra for insurance.### Assistant: A couple points -
First, some segments of the population have health related reasons to refuse vaccination, how do you intend to account for them?
(See: http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/herd-immunity)
Second, insurance as it is currently structured is very unwilling to give people breaks for doing health-positive things. Yes, I know there are some anti-smoking and weight loss clauses that companies have, but in general, you don't get to pay less for eating home cooked meals over fast food, or for demonstrating that you have quick reflexes which might let you avoid a traffic accident better or dodge some other incoming danger. We're giving the insurance company all the benefit here at the expense of the consumer. It should cut both ways, or not at all.
Insurance works on averages, spending too much time and effort to come up with a quote for each individual person is perhaps not even cost effective in the first place even if you were able to establish a premium on something deemed unhealthy.
Furthermore, suppose there is a behavior that is deemed healthy that is later determined to be unhealthy, you have compelled the unhealthy behavior through this system, so in this respect, it is a question of setting precedent. It's a bit bigger than vaccines in general.### Human: Yes, there would of course be an exemption for people who cannot get vaccinations for health reasons. Don't you think, though, that in an age where more information is becoming readily available on people that insurance companies won't adapt to take that into account? Like taking into account smoking (they'd check out social media profiles for pics of you smoking) or your car feedback (see if you wear a seatbelt) or looking at your FitBit readouts to reward for walking 10,000 steps a day.
I guess I'm looking at not vaccinating much like going skydiving. It's very risky and could potentially be costly in medical costs. So why not account for that?
Besides having the government tell us to vaccinate, don't you think if insurers tacked on an added cost for not vaccinating each year that it would have an effect?### Assistant: I certainly agree that it would have an effect.
My second paragraph was intended to address some of the issues you're raising here, let me clarify -
I agree that programs where you pay more or less on your insurance depending on certain behaviors of yours would make sense from a 'fairness' standpoint. However, I have a few problems with how it would be executed.
1 - This only makes sense for privatized insurance, I'd argue that insurance should be entirely through the government, but this is probably too far off topic.
2 - Should your insurance company have access to information like that? This verges on privacy arguments, I do not believe that my insurance company has any business looking at my social media.
3 - Practicality & Fairness, It is more costly and time consuming up front to develop a model for each individual client. Perhaps programs that increase revenue via vaccine surcharges or whatever account for this and turn a profit in the long run, but the 'salad eater' insurance break is costly to develop a model for, and doesn't turn a profit, so the company isn't incentivized to do so. In the end, this means that it is only profitable for the companies to develop surcharges (And maybe not even them). In this case, the individual is the one who gets screwed. The insurance company is the only one who benefits from this scheme, i.e. it isn't fair.
4 - Precedent. You might feel that some of the above arguments don't make sense in the context of vaccines only, but the thing is, if we apply this to vaccines, there's a precedent that you can be taxed into compliance with whatever the government wishes. I'd say this is a bad precedent to set. Imagine that this were around in the eighteenth century, and the government used it to incentivize people to accept bloodletting treatments, you're taxing people who don't harm themselves. Again, risky precedent.### Human: I suppose it could open up a downward spiral where every action you take ends up being monetized and scrutinized. "We saw a photo of you deep frying a turkey for thanksgiving, we assumed you ate some. Premium increased $0.50 per year." What a strange dystopian future.
But still, even with bloodletting, it was the best conceivable health method at the time, so they would still have the best interest of the person at heart.
As for the data, I just imagine some sort of Moneyball type deal from insurance companies because of the vast amounts of info available today and in the future.### Assistant: Exactly! Is it likely to happen, no, but it is the type of thing to keep in mind when we're discussing what amounts to ethics.
I don't think the argument that having the people's best interests at heart cuts it. Suppose you were a citizen at the time, maybe you were a bit more educated, and you opposed bloodletting for health reasons. Wouldn't it be infuriating to be forced to pay more to get out of it?
I'm not too familiar with Moneyball other than knowing it is about statistics based baseball, but it isn't as simple as saying Fried Turkey is a +50 salad a -10, running might be a +10 to the average person, -5 to someone with allergies, -50 to someone with a heart condition. Each person needs an individualized model to consider the health impacts of their actions, there's substantial cost there. |
### Human: CMV:Prohibiting drugs is a violation of my rights as a politically mature citizen.### Assistant: Because your drug use can have an impact on other people, whether you want it to or not. It can make you act irrationally. It can make you more likely to hurt yourself or others, and someone has to pay for fixing the things and people you damage. They can be very addictive, which means that while it may have been your "free choice" to begin taking drugs, it's not really a free choice of yours to continue.### Human: Lets imprison people for being obese then. Their choice in being fat causes both damage to their own bodies as well as destroying their families lives as well because they are forced to deal with their condition. Its hypocritical to make drugs illegal when people can make many decisions that can harm themselves and affect others.### Assistant: Imprisoning the obese is a bad idea because you'd be able to fit far fewer of them in a prison.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry simulations, your comment has been removed:
> Comment Rule 5\. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5)
If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+5+Post+Appeal&message=simulations+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2l72ma/cmvprohibiting_drugs_is_a_violation_of_my_rights/clso8dw\)) |
### Human: CMV:Private Prisons in the UK are a good idea.### Assistant: Prisons run for profit have wider implications than running the facilities themselves. They put private companies in the position of having a financial incentive to put as many people as possible behind bars. In the US this has led to judges being bribed to convict more people (and there has been at least one judge convicted of this), as well as an inventive to lobby politicians for ever harsher laws and longer sentences that have nothing to do with outcomes.
Furthermore, I think we would all agree that, however it is achieved, one of the primary aims of a prison should be to reform or otherwise deter offenders from committing more crimes and going back to prison. For profit prisons have no such incentive, in fact it's in their business interest to see people return to prison.### Human: I live in a country where bribery is institutionalized. Almost every cop can be bribed. If you get pulled over by one, you can bribe him with $5. Policewomen are more expensive and also, if it's late night/weekend or you have a fancy car, it's more expensive too. Actually sometimes it's cheaper and you can get away giving them one soda or so.
The same with judges. You can bribe a judge not by giving him a ton of money but a lunch for minor offenses sometimes. If your crime is more severe, the cost increases of course. I know people that got away with murder (while DUI), drug dealing, rape and so by paying.
A lot of major paperwork you have to do at a public office is not done (or takes forever) if you don't bribe them.
Every public work has a bribe around because the government hires a private company to do that and companies want the contract, so they bribe the mayor, city hall or whoever is in charge to get the job. In big cities or big districts, they don't do that directly with the mayor. The mayor usually has someone who deals with this and gets a commission.
So, using your argument, we shouldn't have private companies making public works because this generates incentives to bribe authorities. Just public companies aking public works.
We should only have public transportation (ran by the government), instead of cars, because as the number of private cars/drivers increase so does bribery to cops. (This last point is a little bit of an exaggeration but I do it to make my point clearer)
I don't think the problem here are public companies or cars or paperwork. The problem is people. People here are raised knowing that you can get away by bribing and also, that receiving a bribe is a good deal and not something dishonest.
Our neighboor country is not so different from us in history and they have similar situations but you will never think about bribing a cop or a judge there because they know better than us. They really are a better country.
**edit: a word*### Assistant: You're creating a straw man argument.
Bigjo's argument is saying that private prisons have an incentive to put more people in prison. This gives the company motivation to put both legal and illegal pressure on governments to put more people in prison.
The problem that Bigjo is stating isn't that for profit prisons is that officials are bribed, but that the consequences of bribery results in more people in prison. So, the fact that more people are being bribed is not the problem that Bigjo is presenting, so arguing against that position is very dishonest.### Human: From what he says here
> They put private companies in the position of having a financial incentive to put as many people as possible behind bars. In the US this has led to judges being bribed to convict more people (and there has been at least one judge convicted of this), as well as an inventive to lobby politicians for ever harsher laws and longer sentences that have nothing to do with outcomes.
I understand what you said. Indeed, they have more incentives to put more people in prison as a consequence of bribery. But, once again, if there's more people inside it's not because criminals starts to replicate, it's because people become more corruptible and that is a deeper problem. That comes from education. Take a regular guy who would never think about raping a girl. If suddenly rape becomes legal, that shouldn't matter to that guy. He is not raping women because it's illegal, he's not raping women because he knows it's a barbaric act and no incentive should be enough to change his mind. I think the same about bribery.### Assistant: It would sure make it a lot harder for the private prison companies to lobby if they didn't exist. |
### Human: CMV: Apple is in no way an innovative or revolutionary company.### Assistant: Apple is innovative not because they had the original idea for any particular product, they are because their particular versions of products defined the market for each one.
Thomas Edison did not invent the first light bulb, he invented a long-lasting one. Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the first telephone, he had the most successful patent on a telephone. Mark Zuckerberg did not invent social networking, he just created the most successful network. Leonardo da Vinci didn't invent painting, but he did change the way we look at it.
Apple didn't invent the PC, but they made it into a consumer staple. Apple didn't invent MP3 players, but they made them the standard of listening devices. Apple didn't invent the PDA or apps, but they defined the market for smartphones.
Take into account how completely far behind the minds of other companies were when the iPhone took control of the market:
*"We think it'll be the best phone… this year. It will kill the iPhone," Verizon Wireless Chief Marketing Officer Mike Lanman told Reuters while discussing the LG Voyager. The latest phone's features include a front touch screen, as well as the ability to open up similar to an enV to reveal yet another screen, and a full QWERTY keyboard. It's packed with Verizon's usual gamut of serives like V Cast Mobile TV, V Cast Music, and has the ability to play .mp3, .wma, and unprotected .aac files."*
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/10/verizon-claims-latest-lg-offering-is-an-iphone-killer/
Apple's innovation is in creating products so perfect for mass markets, that they shape the design of every competitor in the market.### Human: ∆
I have always had the same view as the OP, but you made me see that innovation doesn't always have to mean that one creates something new, but can also mean that one changes an existing idea to better fit our society!
[god dammit deltabot]
EDIT: you gon' rescan or what### Assistant: This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/000066 changed your view (comment rule 4). Please edit your comment and include a short explanation - it will be automatically re-scanned.
^[[The Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem)]
[.](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART
{
"comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this",
"issues": {
"littleText": 1
},
"parentUserName": "000066"
}
DB3PARAMSEND)### Human: You cold as hell DeltaBot. You glorious mf.### Assistant: Cold as ice |
### Human: I'm against any laws that exist purely to protect people from themselves. CMV### Assistant: I'd agree so long as we're talking about laws that truly exist solely to protect an individual.
The thing is, seat belt laws don't just protect the individual, they also prevent serious injury which becomes [VERY expensive](http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130350) regardless of whether or not you die, or survive with the help of medical care. We're talking billions of dollars here.### Human: Or a giant fatass libertarian projectile coming through my window and delivering a clothesline from hell.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: On that thing, what's a libertarian? Americans have a really weeeird political sense, their rights is not like the rights in the world, and lefts are not like the other lefts in the world.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: The issue is that social freedom decreases when economic freedom increases. Power is zero sum.### Assistant: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV:Prejudice against people in majority groups is just as morally wrong as prejudice against people of minority groups.### Assistant: [removed]### Human: I don't "want" my view to be changed. I just want to see if it stands up to scrutiny from others. If I hold a false belief, I want to change it. So far, I'm not convinced. tbh, I think a lot of OPs on this sub give up too easily.### Assistant: > tbh, I think a lot of OPs on this sub give up too easily.
For one, a lot of people post on this sub because they recognize some cognitive dissonance in their beliefs. They're already pretty sure their belief is wrong, but they don't fully understand why.
For another, you do yourself a disservice by phrasing it this way. You shouldn't look at debate as a game. There's nothing wrong with "giving up". There's no such thing as changing your view "too easily".### Human: Yes there is. If you're right. It's your job to convince me. I posted this because I feel like my view point is at least cogent, if not sound. I recognize that I may have some bias here, and I wanted to see if anyone could prove me wrong.### Assistant: You misunderstand my point. If I've convinced you, I've convinced you - it doesn't matter how simple or obnoxious my point was. |
### Human: I believe people in the First World work too much, CMV.### Assistant: I mean, you are in college dude- your life views have some serious changing thats about to happen in the next 3-5 years and on.
Basic research points us to an average hours worked in the private sector (which has typically more restrictive hours) at 34.4
Source:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm
For every 1 person you point to working 50 hours ancetedotally, I will point to another who comes and goes as he pleases.
Is work unpleasant for most? Of course, hence why we call it work, and why we get paid to do it.
Most adults I know don't even mind work that much, and when they are on extended periods of leave or vacation- tend to go crazy from boredom, lack of responsibility, or loss of rountine.
We live pretty good lives in first world America for the most part, compared to our ancestors or people in 3rd world countries. I think you are grossly overestimating how bad working is from reading too much reddit, who hates working more then any place on earth.
Edit: holy shit the number of messages I have got about part time workers and those looking for full time work:
Heres the awesome thing guys, ALL THAT SHIT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE... FOR FREE:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat23.pdf
Even when we exclude part time workers, if you work more then 35 hours a week (full time) the average is still only 42.5! Part time workers is usually somewhere around 10-12% of the workforce, currently at around 20% due to a lackluster recovery, but it doesn't move the needle much.
Historically speaking, IT BARELY MOVES. Even during low unemployment periods, or when the part time workers seeking full time are low, it still barely moves above 40.
All of this stuff is on the BLS or St Louis FRED website, I'm not making this up. Most people on average work 40 hours a week.### Human: > Basic research points us to an average hours worked in the private sector (which has typically more restrictive hours) at 34.4
Yeah, but I think his point is that we should be able to work less *and* support ourselves. If you look at indicators of how well people are supporting themselves (e.g., number of people on government assistance, number of people without healthcare, average household debt, number of recent college grads living with their parents), people may only be working 35 hours a week, but I don't think they're supporting themselves on 35 hours a week.
As far as work not being the worst thing in the world, I agree with you, however you can make an argument that number of hours worked per week is related to things like emotional well-being, divorce rates, life expectancy, stress related diseases such as heart-attacks, etc.### Assistant: Why should we be able to work less and support ourselves? If 3 people only need to work 30 hours to complete the task, why not just hire two people and work 40-45 hours?
The disconnect that happens is- in the perfect world firing one individual and hiring 2 means more pay for the two, lower cost of the product to the consumer, and a more efficient society (third person can work on something new)
Unfortunately we don't have that, its more like fire one, pay the 2 the same, and the profit works its way up. But still, I think people value their work far too much in America.### Human: I don't know. Every non skilled labor job ive worked at, everyone hated their job, but that was all there was. I think for the unskilled, this is a pretty universal feeling. Pulling a leaver, loading a part, or pushing a button isn't exactly fufilling.### Assistant: God, I know that's right.
I work in an assembly line making 8.50 an hour, and it is excruciatingly boring.
When you are doing the same thing literally over and over and over again you start to wonder about the infinite possibilities in life, and whether an hour of your life is worth 8.50.### Human: as I am a student still, and did assembly line work like that for a few weeks during summer, I feel your pain and want to say I support you on keeping on and still making something from it. I wouldn't be as strong as you. I was GLAD I was fired because there was no more work left for me to do, and if that was the only thing I had in life, and had no children to support, and with no way out of finding another job, I'd just end it.
You're a strong man, that is certain.
Btw, what I did during work, was doing calculations to keep my mind doing stuff, doing powers of 2, 3, and so on, or thinking of certain designs. |
### Human: CMV: I believe there is such a thing as an objectively wrong political opinion.### Assistant: > A religious one: you think homosexuality is a sin, so then you shouldn't condone it by allowing gays to marry. I get that, but you are in no position to impose your beliefs upon the lives of others. I believe you should be free to express your disagreement with the lifestyle of homosexuals, but when it comes to what they can or cannot do, as long as it's within the limits of their own human rights, you should not have a say.
How is this objectively wrong? Or reversed: How is your opinion that religious people shouldn't "force" their beliefs on others objectively right? How can you objectively show that homosexuality isn't a sin? How can you objectively say that governments shouldn't be making sure that their citizens don't sin? You can't. You can only use subjective views and values to argue this, because there's no objective reason to care about secularism more than you care about a certain religion.
> An argument from tradition: marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and you'd like to preserve the status quo. This is an argument I can identify most with, since I'm generally a person that's not too fond of change. However, when change implies granting another group of people with the rights they've been deprived of for years I cannot be one to place my fondness for tradition above their general well-being. Besides, gays getting married has no influence over the standards to which I hold my own marriage, or other marriages I approve of.
What objective standards are you using to say that granting people rights is more important than preserving traditions?
Sure, you can make objectively correct statements about political issues. You can say "Prison generally doesn't stop people from committing crime once they are out again," but you can't go from there to "and therefore we should change the penal system without it becoming subjective. The moment you add *any* sort of value judgement (in this case: prisons should reform criminals), it becomes subjective, because you have no objective standard to fall back on. It's not written in the "laws of the universe" that prisons should reform criminals.### Human: > You can only use subjective views and values to argue this, because there's no objective reason to care about secularism more than you care about a certain religion.
I *strongly* disagree with this. Secular thinking applies to the observable, whereas religious thinking applies the unobservable. All else being equal, there is a **positive** case to treat others 'morally' in a secular sense (this is bracketing the fact that morality is a social construct, but that social constructs are in no way "imaginary", etc. etc., whole different discussion) - that is often generalized as "do the least amount of harm" - whereas there is **zero** case for following religious dogma. Secularism follows the same prescription as scientific inquiry - though it is impossible to be 100% sure on anything, treat that which is most consistently observed and deduced as true, and discard the others.
In short, this:
>How can you objectively show that homosexuality isn't a sin? How can you objectively say that governments shouldn't be making sure that their citizens don't sin?
is a loaded question, because sin != moral right, even though there is some overlap. 'Sin' is a religious concept, and should have no legal power in a society with religious freedom; legislation should be based on doing the least harm (when it comes to civil issues). Thus, since gay marriage for example causes no harm, it should be legal.
In shorter, [Russell's Teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) has implications on morality.### Assistant: > Secular thinking applies to the observable, whereas religious thinking applies the unobservable.
Why should you value the observable over the unobservable?
In fact, what reason is there to care about things like minimizing harm?
> Sin' is a religious concept, and should have no legal power in a society with religious freedom;
What objective reason is there to care about religious freedom?
> legislation should be based on doing the least harm (when it comes to civil issues).
Again, what objective reason is there to care for harm minimization? What's the objective reason to go from there to deciding that's what the law should be based on?### Human: Oh man, really? You're going the Nihilism route on this one? I don't think that has much place in the discussion about politics, but I'll take a couple swings.
> Why should you value the observable over the unobservable?
Already answered this: Russell's Teapot. It is most reasonable to act in accordance to what we can observe and reproduce.
>In fact, what reason is there to care about things like minimizing harm?
Simply put, that's the purpose of society. Political bodies are a more evolved way of running society. Disagreement on *how* things should be run generally boils down to Plebeian vs. Patrician ideals, but both have the same end goal - the protection and betterment of the society.
>What objective reason is there to care about religious freedom?
Well, ontological agency is considered the first step of Self-Actualization in [Maslow's Pyramid of Needs](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg/2000px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png), which is why religious freedom is considered a basic human right. But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand; we currently live in a society that *does* have religious freedom, which is why one religion's notion of 'sin' should not be imposed on others.
This all falls under the parenthetical I typed above:
>(this is bracketing the fact that morality is a social construct, but that social constructs are in no way "imaginary", etc. etc., whole different discussion)
so I guess I'll address that now. Morality can never be said to be truly "objective" *by definition*, because morality is what humans (the subjects) view to be acceptable treatment of and by themselves - so it is strictly subjective. I think that's what you're touching on with your questions.
My rebuttal is this: morality being subjective makes it no less real or applicable. We evolved to seek social acceptance to help us, as individuals, survive, since the group fares better than the individual. This is true of all social animals. To act against the group's interests risks reprisal by the group, and by extension the threat of death. So the objective to "do the least harm" is essentially an agreement between members of the society - you don't harm me and I won't harm you.
Thus, the *objective* reason to care about *subjective* morality is one's own survival and ability to reproduce - the guiding directives of every organism on the planet.### Assistant: It's not nihilism, it's about premises. At some point you have to go down to something that you state without evidence, that you are taking as a fundamental truth. In this case you're taking as truth without any evidence that we should strive for the protection and embetterment of society. If I instead think, fuck society, societies are bad! then we are not on the same page and what is objectively true to you (as provable logical consequences of your premise) are not true to me.
The up side is that once you can agree with someone on some premises (i.e. agree to take certain particular things as faith) then you *can* start proving things objectively right or wrong.### Human: I agree that it's about premises, which is why I worked backwards toward the thesis premise (in an informal, pseudo-Socratic way) that "Surviving and reproducing is worth caring about." The underlying implication is that if one disagrees with that premise, then the original argument is meaningless to them anyway.
Further, his/her arguments were absolutely Nihilist. From Merriam-Webster:
>1
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths### Assistant: Just within the archive time to upvote and comment! Good on you! I hate conversations what end with "well you can't say that because *useless nihilism!* |
### Human: CMV: Graduation ceremonies should only be held for High School and College### Assistant: Having graduation ceremonies for completing certain levels of schooling rewards children for doing so, when the alternative is that children are never really rewarded with a ceremony like this until they complete high school. Having a graduation ceremony after, say, middle school can show students that their education is important as the completion of certain stages of it results in a celebratory graduation ceremony.### Human: You shouldn't get a ceremony for doing something your required to do. We have compulsory education until a certain point, and a high school diploma is the first thing we can get that not everyone gets.### Assistant: Why not? We celebrate birthdays, that's even less of an achievement.### Human: Some people don't celebrate them... But I think that's different. Graduations ceremonies celebrate an accomplishment. Birthdays are a celebration that says "hell yeah, I'm 96 years old and I'm not dead yet" or "a year ago I had a kid and got a tax credit!"### Assistant: Whether you were required to do it or not, you still made an accomplishment. Why can't they have a ceremony? |
### Human: CMV: If you haven't been tested for STDs since the last time you had sex, you should disclose that to prospective sex partner before sex### Assistant: The *idea* behind this is good, at least, IMO.
The practicalities get in the way of the specific idea you present though. And there's a SOP in my kinky community I like better. *edit to add: I'm fully behind you in discussing health practices and concerns before sex. But you are focused on the wrong end of things*
Your idea falls short because the tests aren't always easy to get. You need to research the specific tests that are accurate and who offers them and how much it will cost you. [HSV testing in particular is tricky.](http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/understanding-blood-tests-for-herpes/) Many free clinics offer some STD tests, but not all. Insurance will sometimes only cover specific tests for specific people. And for anything viral it takes 3-6 months past exposure for there to be enough antibodies in your body to give a positive test result. So unless you wait 6 months between partners this is basically impossible to do, at least in the manner you suggest.
Now that doesn't mean you lie and say you've been tested and you are okay.
Here's how we do it:
The Super Careful Way: You do get tested every 3 months to a year depending on just how many partners you have. You disclose any positive tests you have ever had. You disclose what you get tested for, what the last results were, and how many partners you've had since that test. MOST IMPORTANT THOUGH: You describe fully your safer sex practices. What sexual acts do you use barriers for? Do you practice any fluid exchange, even saliva?
The More Common Way: You get tested about once a year and disclose any positive results you've had in the past. You describe fully your safer sex practices. What sexual acts do you use barriers for? Do you practice any fluid exchange, even saliva?
The other side of your suggestion that is problematic is many people don't research what can be tested for, what tests they should ask for, and think they are "clean." When really they just don't have HIV or a bacterial infection. Then they think that non barriered sex is okay. Because they aren't carrying anything.
More important than anything else seems to be what safer sex practices a person uses. What kinds of barriers, for what activities. Even being HSV positive doesn't mean you have to pass it on to your partners if you are careful and smart.
**TL;DR: It's better to assume all people are carriers of something and rely on safer sex practices to keep diseases from being transmitted. Test results are usually incomplete, sometimes just plain inaccurate, need to be taken in a specific window, only good until the next partner, and inconvenient and/or expensive to get.**
*edit typo and slightly reword tldr### Human: This isn't part of the debate, but for information's sake I'd just like to add to this that for women, you have to specifically ask to get tested for HIV and Herpes. The herpes one is huge. People can be carriers and not even know it because they have had zero symptoms, and it's ridiculously easy to spread. When you go in for your usual pap, make sure you get that blood test done too. You could easily be a carrier with minimal/ no symptoms and just not know, making it ridiculously easy to spread. Doctors don't really care if you get it either, because it's not life-threatening, so they won't push you to get tested because it costs them too much money. Don't take no for an answer- demand to get the blood work done on a regular basis.### Assistant: I've always heard that herpes blood tests are unreliable, that you need something to culture to confidently diagnose anyone with it.### Human: The blood test tells you if you have it, the culture tells you whether it's type 1 or 2 that's presenting in a certain location.### Assistant: [There are good reasons the CDC doesn't recommend routine blood test screenings for herpes.](http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/screening.htm)
Also see:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/07/order-herpes-igm-blood-test.html
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/understanding-blood-tests-for-herpes/
Before "those are just blogs!" replies, actually look at them. Both are chock full of links to primary references, including the CDC link at the top of the post.
Good summary from the first link:
>But say you did get a herpes blood test (even though it’s not recommended many people seem to get it done) and it’s positive for something called IgM antibodies. Armed with these results your doctor proceeds to tell you that these results mean you caught herpes recently, so you start to freak out.
>Stop right there.
>A positive herpes IgM test means nothing. I’ve posted about this before but enough people continue to leave comments on my herpes posts asking about their positive IgM test that it bears repeating.
>A herpes IgM test is never, ever, ever indicated. Not ever, because it doesn’t mean much of anything.
>...
>Before you decide to get a blood test for herpes, get informed. Herpes blood tests are expensive and can’t tell you when you caught herpes or even if the virus in your mouth or on your genitals. What if you just want to be “Screened for everything?” Herpes blood tests are not screening tests, but tests that should be used to answer a specific problem. If your question is, “Do I have genital herpes,” that answer can’t be answered reliably with a blood test.### Human: My point is less for the individual who might have herpes and more for their partners catching it and getting infections, if the initial person showed no symptoms. I tested positive (for both, they think) recently, and while I don't get any symptoms, my partner and I are still very careful because he could get it and have symptoms.### Assistant: The CDC itself doesn't recommend herpes blood tests for asymptomatic people. They lay out why in detail in that first link up there.
If you disagree with that, your quarrel's with them, not me. I'm just deferring to their expertise.
Just the fact that false positives are a real concern (I've heard different numbers, but always enough to be considered "significant") should tell you something, imho. |
### Human: CMV: I believe human genetic modification is not only ethical, but it will eventually be unethical to not do so.### Assistant: >I am also not against modification for intelligence, attractiveness, or athletic ability. I believe that not leveling the playing field in this regard allows some to be given a head start simply through blind luck.
People who argue against this usually see it the other way. Who is going to be able to afford the best genetic modification? The person who is working their way up and trying to climb the societal ladder, or the person who had the "blind luck" of being born to someone in the 0.1% upper echelon of society?
The main argument I have heard against modification is basically that it will INCREASE the gap between those that can afford the modification, and those that cant.
Suddenly, the top 1% can become *significantly* smarter and better abled than the rest of the population, and if you can get a trust fund going, you can not only fund your child's life, but also make sure they have superior genes so they ALWAYS have EVERY advantage.
A rich person born with good genes will likely be ahead. A rich person born with bad genes will still likely be well off.
A poor person born with good genes has the *chance* to *get* ahead. A poor person with bad genes has almost no chance at all.
Now I understand that it is easy to feel bad for that poor person with bad genes, but let's be realistic. If we offer gene therapy to ANYONE, the Rich will *definitely* be able to get it first, and get better versions. So in reality, the scenario would end up being this...
A rich person born with good genes will definitely be ahead. A rich person born with bad genes will get "better" genes and likely be ahead.
A poor person born with good genes will have a *chance* to get ahead. A poor person born with bad genes will have to pay for treatment just to get by.
Unfortunately, there is lots of room for not only error but further division between us. I don't think we should welcome this brave new world, at least until we solve a few other problems first. I don't want a caste system to develop where beings are LITERALLY superior to others.### Human: This might give a new meaning to trickle down, but eventually the super expensive genes will make their way into the poorer population the old fashioned way.### Assistant: Sure, or maybe not. Perhaps the difference in class only gets worse and worse. Perhaps the new upper class becomes more like a royal family who breeds with other "royals"?### Human: Plenty of royals throughout history enjoyed slumming it with the proles from time to time.### Assistant: Plenty, sure. But also they are outliers, which is why royal bloodlines were so screwed up. |
### Human: CMV: Financial abortion is a must for gender equality### Assistant: It's simply a matter of the values expressed by our society. We (collective "we", not necessarily literally you or I) consider bodily autonomy paramount. It doesn't *matter* if the guy next to you needs a kidney and you have one to spare; nobody can compel you to give one up. It doesn't matter if a person sewed into your side will die if you remove them; they have no right to your body no matter how dire their situation. It doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not; if the mother does not want something in her body, it has no right to be there. Until birth, this is what we consider most important. That the mother has more control over the outcome of the pregnancy of the father is merely an artifact of biology, and simply cannot be changed. To disagree here means to disagree with the notion of bodily autonomy itself, or to suggest that there is something more important than it, which is fair, but not an argument you're likely willing to make.
After birth, this is no longer an issue--there are no questions of bodily autonomy anymore. Now the principle concern is the child, and here both parents are on equal footing. For either of them to legally divorce themselves of the child requires us to believe that the parent's autonomy is more important than the wellbeing of the child, indeed of the future generation of our society. Again, if you believe this then that's fair, but not many people do, which makes it unlikely.
_________________________________________
You could view the problem as having two stages, each with possible solutions. The first is the pregnancy. Is the mother's right to bodily autonomy more important than the fetus' right to life, or the father's right to her (i.e., the mother's) body?
The second is post-birth. Is the child's wellbeing more important than the autonomy of either or both parents?
If you answer to both questions in the affirmative then you necessarily believe that financial abortion is not acceptable.### Human: > if the mother does not want something in her body, it has no right to be there.
Please. That argument is a red herring.
The vast majority of abortions are done [for reasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions) having nothing to do with "not wanting the fetus in her body":
- 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing.
- 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
- 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
- 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
- 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
- 7.9% Want no (more) children
- 3.3% Risk to fetal health
- 2.8% Risk to maternal health
- 2.1% Other
Most abortions happen because the woman just wants to opt out of parenthood. It almost never has anything to do with the fact that the fetus is in her body.
Personally, I think those are all perfectly good reasons to abort. But except for the health ones (which are a tiny percentage), all of those reasons are equally applicable to men.
"It's her body!!!" is a useful battle cry for people who are on The Side Of Women and so they want to hammer on any plausible-sounding reason that applies to women but not to men. But that's not why most abortions happen. And... I mean, I don't know you personally, but in general when I talk to people who are in favour of abortion but against financial abortion, I get the feeling that their bottom line is that they've decided to be Supportive Of Women, and all this bodily-autonomy stuff is just after-the-fact rationalization.
Which is understandable! You imagine a poor pregnant girl who's stuck with a baby she doesn't want, and it's going to screw up the whole rest of her life, and your heart goes out to her, and you want her to be able to opt out. And then you imagine a poor single mother who's stuck with a baby she does want but the father isn't contributing financially, and your heart goes out to her, and you want her to get the support she needs. We *care* about helping and protecting and supporting women. It's totally natural. But it would be nice to see a little bit of empathy for men, too.### Assistant: Yes. Those are the reasons that she does not want a fetus in her body - I don't understand how they should negate the argument of bodily autonomy. Both pregnancy and abortion is something that happens to the woman's body so she should decide which it should be?### Human: Because most of the reasons are unrelated to her body and are equally applicable to the father's situation yet she gets to choose and he doesn't. Pretty straightforward double standard.### Assistant: Don't you think that pregnancy is pretty straightforward double standard?### Human: I'm going to try and lay this out as clearly as possible.
According to that source, the women who choose to abort usually do so for reasons that equally effect men. They have a choice where men don't, which is usually justified by some sort of 'her body her choice' logic, when it seems that that has nothing to do with why people actually choose to abort the overwhelming majority of the time.
If the mother can choose not to be financially responsible for a child, then why shouldn't the father?### Assistant: I'm going to lay this out also as clear as possible. Since woman can get pregnant and man can't don't you think that pregnancy is a double standard?
Your response has nothing to do with that basic question. I know you want to change the scope, but I did ask you a simple question.### Human: Sure, I guess you could call that a double standard, even though that's more an unavoidable way nature works rather than a set of laws that we impose upon people.
All my comments have been about these laws, I never challenged that only women get pregnant. I'm not even sure where you're going with this to be honest.### Assistant: I'm saying that there is an inherent double standard caused by biology.
If a guy wants to reduce his chance of getting a girl pregnant he can take steps such as a vasectomy to reduce that chance. He can chose to be very careful with whom he has sex with. He can have talks with partners before sex happens. He can simply chose not to have sex if it matters that much to him.### Human: > If a guy wants to reduce his chance of getting a girl pregnant he can take steps such as a vasectomy to reduce that chance. He can chose to be very careful with whom he has sex with. He can have talks with partners before sex happens. He can simply chose not to have sex if it matters that much to him.
This has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and all of these avenues exist for women yet they are still offered choices that are not offered to men in the same situation.### Assistant: Trust me I know. I'm talking about ways that guys can take responsibility.
This has zero to do with this.
The rights of the child do come into play here. The man knows the limitations of the biological system of child creaton. Knowing that, he continues to have sex. If a child is born based on that choice, it is the state best interest to insure that the child has resources.
IF you don't want to have to pay child support, get a vasectomy. Don't create children and then have taxpayers pay them. I'm not here to subsidise you having sex.
And I know that it is a convenient method to shift blame, but you don't get to shift all responsibility on the girl. You knew the potential consequences. You chose to ignore them because pleasure was more important to you. Deal with it.### Human: > you don't get to shift all responsibility on the girl. You knew the potential consequences. You chose to ignore them because pleasure was more important to you. Deal with it.
You'll be sorry to hear that I'm not actually in this situation myself, and that this is just something I happen to believe. Anyway, this is all going nowhere fast, I've said my piece. Peace and Love. <3 |
### Human: I think fast food workers in the US should be paid more so that they can live comfortably on having just one job and don't need government support. CMV### Assistant: > I believe that if you have a full time job, even if its "just flipping burgers", you should be able to have a reasonable standard of living and not need government support just to make ends meet.
Wages, in theory, should reflect the value of the work being done. Let's assume the average fast food worker is making $7.50/hr. What about that work is so valuable that it should be paid twice as much, or even a 50% increase?
It's nice that you want people to be able to live comfortably, but fast food jobs aren't designed for full time, feed-your-family work. It's entry level work designed more as supplemental income or early life work experience. If you increase those wages significantly beyond what those jobs are worth (and the automation we're seeing McDonald's and such pursuing tells us that even the current minimum wage is too high), a combination of these things will happen:
1) Fewer people will be employed by these sectors.
2) Fewer teens and people looking for second jobs will be employed by these sectors.
3) More automation, meaning fewer people necessary to be employed.
4) Higher prices resulting in lower sales resulting in less demand for those employees.
5) Less competition as smaller competitors cannot keep up with those wages.
If the argument is more about the government assistance for these workers, the answer may be reforming the welfare state to ensure it goes to people who aren't actually employed and who have the means to work. It would be irrational for low-wage firms not to take advantage of the laws that were put in place because the progressive left continues to expand the welfare state.
At the end of the day, you believe you've identified a problem, but the solutions will undoubtedly make it worse for that wage-earning class. You can have high wage earners, or you can have a group of people who are significantly employed with low-wage skills for low-wage jobs, but you can't have both.### Human: > but fast food jobs aren't designed for full time, feed-your-family work.
Jobs aren't "designed" with the worker in mind; they're designed to perform a task. The job of a lawyer isn't designed to make sure they can afford a certain standard of living, it's designed to bring profit into the firm. Likewise, the job of a McDonald's worker isn't "designed" with a teenager in mind. It's designed with the mindset of "what's the cheapest and fastest way we can get the burgers from the fridge to the counter?"
If you allow the invisible hand of the market to regulate employment, then you will get wages that reflect the supply of qualified workers against the demand of the positions. In today's world, there are a lot more workers than could fill those jobs, so, in a free market system, the pay probably could drop to $4 an hour or so.
So... now, as a society, we ask ourselves: "In a world where capital is concentrated, free land is a distant memory, and automation is always decreasing the need for labor, is the free market really the best way to distribute goods?### Assistant: >the pay probably could drop to $4 an hour or so.
You're being very generous here with this hourly wage.
It will most likely plummet to far below that. Keep in mind that the current minimum wage in India is 2.12USD per day.
Oh, and of course there's the very recent rise in unpaid internships, which are 0USD per day.
What would happen if the minimum wage were removed is that a lot of jobs would immediately plummet in value to below a dollar an hour, and as a result of this rent and basic necessities/utilities would plummet in price as well (to adjust to the new median income), while everything else will stay the same price.### Human: >It will most likely plummet to far below that.
Why would anyone work for 2 dollars a day in America, when they can just collect welfare?### Assistant: Because if minimum wage drops (causing basic necessities to drop), then welfare can be dropped as well and still have the same purchasing power.
In any case, let's be honest, the removal of minimum wage just isn't going to happen. In a scenario where there was enough political support for the removal of minimum wage, there would also be enough support for the removal of welfare.
Ultimately, minimum wage itself is a form of welfare, the only difference is whether a corporation provides the money or a government provides the money. Or in the case of the United States, where people are on both minimum wage and welfare, both corporations and governments contribute. |
### Human: I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV### Assistant: There are 12 states where a felon may lose their voting rights permanently. The majority restore voting rights at least by the time the probation period is over. [Here's a chart showing how each state treats felons' voting rights.](http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286)### Human: It's not as clear cut as you make it seem. You often have to pay a fee to reinstate your voting rights even in states that don't permanently bar you from voting. Problem is once you're labeled a felon, you can be discriminated against in getting a job, getting a home, getting food stamps, etc. Furthermore, a lot of people might end up scared to even go anywhere near the police to reinstate these rights. So while it may *seem* like a lot of states reinstate rights, this is only legally speaking. Where as you're still basically barred from voting in reality.### Assistant: This statement is so nebulous, I don't even know what to point out first. A felon possibly being scared of police? What does this have to do with voting? Discrimination? How can you be discriminated against when you submit a ballot? Which states are you required to pay a fee to register after committing a felony? Did you just make this up?### Human: Why wouldn't a felon be scared of police? There is a stigma about being a felon. Do you not think a felon might want to be cautious around someone who can put them back in prison? What this has to do with voting is that if you need to go to a place to pay your restitution, you may avoid doing so if you know police might be there. Considering you'd likely have to go to a court building or the like to do so, there's a good chance police will be there.
Discrimination can keep someone from getting a job. Without a job, you might not be able to pay your restitution. So while you'd be able to vote *had you had the money to pay restitution*, this isn't a simple task and can be a good enough de facto barring from voting.
Many states require you to pay full restitution and fees (such as probation, parole, general restitution) before registering to vote again. So while you may be out of prison, and while felons might be able to vote in your state, it can take years for you to pay back the money you owe.### Assistant: So basically, there is no direct "barring" any felons from voting if they have completed their sentence/restitution. Only a possible chain of events that could possibly keep someone from voting, incidentally. Sounds about right.### Human: Yes, there aren't additional legal barriers (except in places where there are), but that doesn't belittle the de facto hurdles that already exist. Paying restitution shouldn't be taken lightly. Neither should the discrimination and stigma that a felon faces. Especially when something as little as personal possession of cocaine can be a felony. |
### Human: I believe the US Presidency should be limited to one 6-year term. CMV### Assistant: Well, it's not like there's a sudden upsurge of productivity during a President's Last/Final term. He's got no worries about reelection then, but, in case you didn't notice during the Shutdown, things can still grind to a halt.
The thing is, the President doesn't really have much to due with policy-making. He can spearhead new ideas and campaign for certain legislation, sure, but at the end of the day, it's still all on Congress. They're the ones who vote for or against something. And they're ALWAYS up for reelection (hell, if you're a representative, you only get 2 year chunks), so they're always gonna to be watching the polls.### Human: Exactly. This is why representatives spend most of their time pork barrelling.### Assistant: It's also the reason that they need to listen to their constituents at all after the election.### Human: To be fair, is that what we want them to do?
These are federal representatives: we want them to act in the national interest, not local. We have local representatives so that every area has (close-to) equal representation, not so that they act in the best local interest. That latter phenomenon, while possibly an inherent consequence of local representation, is not desirable behaviour.### Assistant: To be fair, does it matter what anyone outside their constituency wants them to do? Politicians are ostensibly elected to represent the views and interests of their constituents based on a campaign platform. It's literally their job to represent them.
What you're describing is an inherent characteristic of representative government. It may not be what you want them to do, but it's definitely what their constituents who voted for them want them to do.### Human: I agree with your points on the duties of a representative, but it really depends on who you ask. A bit of the movie [*1776*](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068156/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt) does a nice job of presenting the common dilemma of an elected representative through the thoughts of Dr. Lyman Hall, the sole congressional delegate from Georgia at the Second Continental Congress:
-------------------------
> *[During the vote on independence]*
> **Dr. Lyman Hall:** Mr. President, Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue - the people are against it, and I'm for it.
>*[laughter]*
>**Dr. Lyman Hall:** However, I'm afraid I'm not quite certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. In all fairness, until I can figure that out, I'd better lean a little on their side. Georgia says nay.
--------------
What are your thoughts on such a predicament?### Assistant: While the Constitution allows either a delegate or representative role for Congress, I personally believe that delegate was the true intention of the Founding Fathers. Considering that a representative role becomes an inaccurate national poll (51% of District X is Republican, so the whole district is Republican), and that Senators were initially designed to be insulated from popular opinion, delegate seems like the correct/better interpretation of a Congressman's role. |
### Human: CMV: Schools should have to provide a quality lunch, free of charge to all students.### Assistant: > As a person who just graduated highschool last year in the USA, the school lunches were expensive ($3) and crap, i knew many children whose lunch would consist of chips, candy, and soda, and refused to buy lunch either because they didn't' want to spend the money, or because the lunch was poor in quality.
If the school lunches were poor in quality when people were paying $3 for them, what kind of quality do you expect when they are to be given out for free?
And assuming they are given out for free, how do you plan to cover the cost?
I don't know how many people are in school right now in the US, wikianswers seems to think 75 million between nursery and college. I'll take the number as 50 million. That's 50 million children who need to have a free lunch provided, if the lunch costs $4 to get the ingredients to the school and then pay people to make/serve it, that's up to $200m a day on lunches. Even if only half the school population were to eat these lunches, it would still take only 2 weeks of school to blow 1 billion dollars on free lunches.
It's just not cost effective.### Human: It isn't meant to be cost effective, its for the good of the people, not designed to make money### Assistant: Yeah but you can't just go "Oh it's good for the people damn the cost" Even the government has to think about how expensive something is going to be.### Human: > **Especially** the government has to think about how expensive something is going to be.
It's easy to think that the government has money, but it's only income is taxes.
So, more government spending equates to more taxes or more debt.### Assistant: We live in a country that has spent $1.45 TRILLION on a fighter plane that doesn't work yet. If two weeks of free school lunches for every child in the United States cost a billion dollars, we could get a year for $26 billion. So instead of $1.45 trillion spent on a fighter plane that doesn't work yet, it would be $1.424 trillion spent on a fighter plane that doesn't work yet and every kid in the country gets a good meal for showing up to school.### Human: >We live in a country that has spent $1.45 TRILLION on a fighter plane that doesn't work yet.
Now you understand why its a bad idea to let Washington DC control $1.45 TRILLION. |
### Human: CMV: If Bitcoin users actually paid all of the required taxes from their transactions, they would never use Bitcoin### Assistant: I've bought a video game using bitcoins before, just for the novelty of it.
Tax was calculated prior to purchase just like it would be in USD.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That depends on how the transaction worked; places that use coinbase often sell you just enough btc at present market value to conduct the transaction and then those coins are sold back so the retailer doesn't end up holding btc either. As a retailer you could choose to accept btc but you don't have to. Then nobody has capital gains from the transaction at all.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: You misunderstood the scenario -- if I use previously held bitcoins, yes, I would have capital gains. But that's not necessarily how it works. When Coinbase partners with a site they offer the opportunity for purchasers to buy bitcoins *at checkout time*.
So a user with USD would get to checkout at Expedia, Reddit, or Overstock, purchase exactly enough bitcoins with USD to cover their purchase, and then the bitcoins are shifted to the merchant's account. The purchaser wouldn't pay any capital gains as it's a wash -- he buys and sells for the same price (instantly).
The merchant gets BTC converted to USD with no fee for the first million dollars of traffic by Coinbase. After that it's a 1% fee -- which is cheaper than paying credit card transaction fees, so everyone wins! And nobody has to pay capital gains.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: If Coinbase did that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Right now they're trying to compete with credit cards by saying, effectively, our transactions are cheaper for merchants. Accounting departments for large merchants (like any of the aforementioned companies) will very quickly notice if there are more fees. If you can capture 1% of the sales of some seriously large companies that is a heck of a lot of money, especially since Coinbase is nowhere near as large a company as Visa or Mastercard, and that's something like a 50% discount (over Visa/MC) for the merchant. Everyone wins.
Could they shoot themselves in the foot? Sure, but I think the people running the company are a little smarter than that (and if they aren't, they won't be around long). |
### Human: CMV:Tarantino is completely stuck with the same themes, character types, dialogues, actors and music for the last 20 years.### Assistant: The things you've described are what we would usually refer to as part of a director's style, and most directors have a distinctive style that runs similar throughout their work. To say that Tarantino uses the same style of characters, dialogue, themes, and pacing throughout his films says nothing about whether or not watching Pulp Fiction would be the exact same experience as watching Kill Bill, or whether either film could stand on their own. Lots of directors like to use the same themes and filming techniques because that's what interests them, and lots of directors like to work with the same actors because their acting styles may sync up with the director's style of directing and dialogue (also, being friends helps).
The fact is, one can use similar style in completely different contexts and genres to tell completely different and relatively unique stories, and the similarities are what make them identifiable as a Tarantino film, or a Scorcese, or a Spielberg, or any other major director one might care to name.
If you look up any iconic director, they will generally be known for something that is distinctly associated with their style, and it is hardly a criticism to say that their style remained consistent throughout their career. In fact, this is a useful tool for a director to distinguish themselves and stand out from the crowd. Any year a Tarantino film comes out, everyone knows it, whether they like him or not, because of his distinctive style that sets him apart from the rest that appeals to a lot of people.
[Here's a quick example](http://www.slideshare.net/AgonKoshi/director-signature-styles) of some signature styles of some major directors (including Tarantino), though it's hardly a thorough analysis. One can take entire film courses on a single director if they wanted, analyzing the various techniques and themes they prefer to use and why.
Here's an example with a different director: Christopher Nolan often likes to work with the same actors (most often Michael Caine and Christian Bale, though Joseph Gordon Levitt and Tom Hardy are also common). His films almost all feature powerful, efficient, well-dressed professional men working at the peak of their craft to accomplish deeply personal goals, while struggling with complicated relationships with an unreliable or conflicted female character. This could describe Memento, The Prestige, Inception, and his entire run on the Batman franchise.### Human: I think the line between signature styles and being stuck is the ability to do something else. An actor is regarded as a good actor if he is convincing in some completely different roles, recent examples are di Caprio (Titanic vs. Inception) or Bryan Cranston. Tarantino never gave any evidence that he can think out of his box.### Assistant: You're comparing apples to oranges: actors and directors aren't the same, and even then most actors have distinctive acting styles that emerge even while they play very different roles (it's the reason why you cast specific types of actors for specific parts, and not just any actor for any part).
And again, a director's style is not so much a limit on what they can do, as just their preference on how they do it. Django Unchained was a completely different movie from Inglorious Basterds, which was a completely different movie from Deathproof, which was completely different from Kill Bill, which was completely different from...etc. They may all feature similar themes like intense moments of violence, but they each have a different take on the way they explore those themes. The violence in Django is meant to make you feel very different from the violence in Kill Bill. Even if they're depicted in a similar manner, the context matters (violence against realistic slaves and slave-masters vs violence against cartoonish super-villains and gangsters). They may all feature the same style of dialogue, but the stuff the characters say are all very different, and have different meaning.
Your complaints about not doing something new don't make much sense, since in my previous post I gave examples of numerous directors who could fit almost the exact same complaint you issued if you change around the details a bit. It sounds like what you want is for Tarantino to make a film that isn't a Tarantino film. Why? You can already get a not-Tarantino film from any director other than Tarantino. What does Tarantino stand to gain from removing the things that makes him stand out among all other directors, if his style clearly hasn't limited his ability to explore any setting, genre, or story he actually wants?### Human: > if his style clearly hasn't limited his ability to explore any setting, genre, or story he actually wants?
You think he does that? To me these movies are all kind of blaxploitation movies or more general: Pulp Fiction = revenge with gangsters. Inglorious Basterds = revenge with nazis. Kill Bill = revenge with martial arts. Death proof = revenge with girls and a car. Django = revenge with slaves.
To me, this is not exploring settings and genres. He just sells what worked before.### Assistant: All of them may be inspired exploitation movies, but only one of them is blaxploitation. But again, making exploitation genre films about revenge is a stated interest and inspiration for him, and thus far it allows him to make very different movies that span numerous genres that might otherwise have almost nothing to do with each other (kung fu, gangsters, horror, period historical dramas, war movies, slaves, etc.). The fact that one can tell a revenge story in all of those settings is no different than complaining that some other director could have told a love story in all of them instead (never mind that the plot of a love story is generally way more uniform than the plot of these very different revenge stories). If you're going to ignore *all* the things that make them different to focus exclusively on the things that make them similar (i.e. the things that make them a Tarantino film(tm)), you can lump almost any director into this complaint (as I've stated before and you have thus far ignored). Strip away enough details and every movie by every director ever start to sound the same.
This is aside from the fact that the revenge theme is almost non-existent in Pulp Fiction, or any of his movies prior to Kill Bill. Back then, the unifying theme was much closer to contemporary hipster (90's style suit hipsters, not 00's style skinny jeans and thick rim glasses hipsters) and gangster crime stories. Even sticking within revenge, the revenge theme in Kill Bill is person vs persons who committed a specific act against them. In Inglorious Basterds it's person vs organization / ideology that committed general tragedies against populations. In Django Unchained it's both, though Django's revenge is more personal while Schultz's is more ideological. By just reducing it all to "revenge" you overlook what that means in context and why there are lots of different things to explore in that theme. You cannot simply extract the plot and characters from one film and transplant them into the other and still have it work. The contexts and details just don't fit the settings and themes anymore, even if they're all about "revenge".
To make a different apples-to-oranges yet hopefully relevant analogy, you're basically complaining that all the songs by a specific musician are in the same musical genre, or are played with most of the same instruments. Some (non-singer) musicians will experiment with different instruments in the same genre, or using the same instruments blended in different genres, but very few will try to completely reinvent every aspect of their performance for every song or album. It just doesn't make sense to do so, and it's irrelevant to critique them for not doing so. When every song becomes basically the same with the exact same chord progression, interchangeable lyrics and tempos then that's a problem, but it is not a problem to say that a Country Music singer is "stuck" in the Country Music genre, or a Jazz player is only playing Jazz. But Tarantino is a director who is using many of the same instruments and band members to play songs in wildly different genres. To get to the point where one can say all his movies are the same would require one to basically ignore all but the most generalized details, and to miss the point of having a style in the first place.### Human: The point of similarity is difficult. To some Nickelback produce interchangeable chords and meaningless lyrics, to other, who listen extensively to their songs, of course every song is different.
Lets tackle the problem from another angle: did you LEARN something from Tarantino movies? Do you think the characters are as deep as people in real life? Or do you have the feeling that you look at humanized cartoon figures, which interact in a way an 8 year old kid would imagine?
Tarantino is an autistic being with no sense for real human interaction and psychology.### Assistant: >did you LEARN something from Tarantino movies?
This is an irrelevant line of questioning because one has never been required to "learn" anything nor has any movie ever been obliged to "teach" anything in order to be considered a good or great movie. That said, there's plenty to consider when watching any given Tarantino movie.
Using Inglorious Basterds: on the surface, it's just a Jewish revenge story against Nazis. But did you ever stop to consider why almost all the Germans (and other non-Americans) are depicted as articulate and civilized, and most of their implied atrocities are off-screen or obscured, whereas the Basterds (our heroes) are explicitly depicted as violent psychopaths who joyously murder and mutilate prisoners and collect scalps like savages and ultimately become suicide bombers (even if the target of their aggression are Nazis)? Obviously this is a departure from history, but is there some purpose in this particular depiction that a surface glance may have missed? Can you think of anything worth considering in that, or does the distaste for Tarantino blind one's ability to consider possible themes beyond the most obvious ones presented?
>Do you think the characters are as deep as people in real life?
Also irrelevant; lots if not most movies occupy a heightened reality so that they can emphasize certain themes or aspects of human nature or the human condition the film is trying to explore. The fact that this is explicitly true in several Tarantino films (as he himself states with his films-within-films idea) does not make it invalid.
Also, efficient storytelling requires that characters only use as much screen-time to display as much depth as is necessary to convey the important aspects of their character, theme, setting, and role in the plot. If anything, a complaint I sometimes hear is that we often spend *too much* time learning about aspects of Tarantino's characters' personalities or interests that only tangentially affect the plot.
I can't think of any movie character from any movie by any director ever that displayed as much depth as a 'real person' because one can only spend a few hours with those characters at a time. On the other hand, I can think of lots of characters that have displayed varying levels of depth that were appropriate for their role in the story and establishing the setting.
Using a non-Tarantino example, all the characters in Inception other than Cobb are explicitly 1 dimensional, but this is deliberately done for a very specific purpose that enhances the plot and theme.
Some of Tarantino's characters are cartoonish (again, explicitly and deliberately so), and some of them are more grounded and realistic. It depends on the setting, purpose, and their role in the film. The purpose of films (or any art form) was never exclusively to be "realistic", but to be artistic, and entertaining. The fact that most people are entertained, find them interesting, and often emotionally or intellectually challenging, mean that they're doing their job as art. The fact that some people don't have a taste for them is no more a problem than in any other art form.
>Tarantino is an autistic being with no sense for real human interaction and psychology.
And this is a non-sequitur that is neither demonstrably true, nor relevant to the discussion.
Edit: grammar### Human: *Obviously this is a departure from history, but is there some purpose in this particular depiction that a surface glance may have missed?*
You can interpret many things into this - they are more primitive just because they are Americans. Or is this even hidden criticism of recent US war crimes? Huuuhh.. how original.
The movie might like to show that also cultivated people can commit atroxities. Its a good idea to tell this because a younger audience might not know this yet and if you only used to romantic hollywood comedy (and only then), a "bad" good guy and a "good" bad guy is more intriguing... anyway, where does this lead you? Speculation and no conclusive answers. You can interpret any hidden meaning in anything.
I would definitely say that the purpose of movies is to show you something that you didnt know, induce thought processes, or depicting timeless problems, plots and characters on a very high niveau. This is a hallmark of good books and good movies. Pure entertainment is meaningless and will be forgotten. We dont care about the Tarantinos of the 18th century... therefore I also do not share your opinion on screen time / efficient storytelling vs. depth. Its no excuse to be superficial just because you have only 120 min. What do you learn from the "efficiently told" story of Django? Nothing, so after all that were some inefficient 2 h.
Concerning the characters: he does not depict things like an adult would do.. nor do his movies evolve over the years like those of many other directors. You always have the feeling you watch the phantasies of an 8 year old boy about how cool or powerful or nihilistic he wants to be. But his plots are insanely naive, his characters are way too shallow.
Tarantino movies are often R-rated, which is ok. But they should also have a rating like "Dont watch it if you are over 25, you are too old for this shit" or something.### Assistant: Is this really about Tarantino being stuck, or just you not liking any of his movies? Which is fine, it's just a different topic.### Human: I liked Pulp Fiction a lot. It was different.. and contrary to Tarantinos following works, kinda non-stuck and un-overused. |
### Human: CMV: Hot dogs are not sandwiches### Assistant: So you're saying that it's more like a wrap?
Question: would you consider a "hoagie" or "sub" to be a sandwich? The way that is constructed is typically to take a single roll, cut it almost in half (but leaving a connector) and filling it with toppings. I see a hot dog as being constructed very similarly.
Also, what is your opinion on the "open-faced sandwich"?### Human: I definitely consider the single-roll hoagie/sub to be a sandwich, because they can function just fine if you were to complete that cut. I see the connecting bit of bread in this case to be just a relic of constructing the sandwich, not a core piece of the mechanic. In hot dogs, the entire food delivery fails if the connection is broken (just think about how pissed you get when the roll breaks).
Open-faced sandwiches . . . I don't think I consider them sandwiches, despite the name. I can't pick it up and eat it with my hands; the bread is just like a [trencher](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_%28tableware%29)### Assistant: >I see the connecting bit of bread in this case to be just a relic of constructing the sandwich, not a core piece of the mechanic. In hot dogs, the entire food delivery fails if the connection is broken (just think about how pissed you get when the roll breaks).
The same could be said of a meatball sub. Is a meatball sub not a sandwich? The definition of "sandwich" as a verb involves putting something between two other things. The hot dog bun has a top and bottom; that the hot dog is between those two halves is more important than whether or not they're connected.
>Open-faced sandwiches . . . I don't think I consider them sandwiches, despite the name. I can't pick it up and eat it with my hands.
I think this goes to the core of what a sandwich is. The Earl of Sandwich (as the story goes) invented it out of a desire for convenience. The filling is made easier to eat by being placed between two pieces of bread. The hot dog bun fulfills this function despite the fact that the top and bottom halves are connected.
Your final point is that in popular usage, hot dogs and sandwiches are distinct. This is because "hot dog" is a highly specific term and sandwich is a generic term. You would be surprised at someone referring to a bunch of hot dogs as "sandwiches" for the same reason you'd be surprised at them describing a rack of bicycles as "several vehicles."
This usage has to do with the outsize role that hot dogs play in American culture, in comparison with other kinds of sandwiches. But the same can be said of hamburgers, which are often categorized apart from other sandwiches as well. And you will be hard-pressed to come up with a clear definition of sandwich which excludes hamburgers. The fact is that once you deviate even a bit from the hot dog which is familiar to Americans, you get a [sausage sandwich](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Italian_Sausage_Sandwich.jpg).### Human: Welp, this gets a Δ from me. The fundamental "sandwichness" comes from the convenience of food that can be held by the bread carrier, not the exact configuration of it.### Assistant: Because of you I will now call them hotdog sandwiches, and next time I say I'm making/bringing sandwiches they shall be hotdogs. |
### Human: I think The Red Pill boils down to guys acting like assholes and trying to legitimize it. CMV### Assistant: Hmmm. This is an interesting discussion. I've actually only heard of this sub secondhand before now, but I was curious and went over there and browsed the front page.
I don't think they're trying to legitimize it, because I think in their own minds it's already 100% legitimate. They truly believe what they're saying. And it seems in many cases they've employed a type of selective bias in that they choose partners that probably already fit into their worldview. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because they generate a world where women only go for successful assholes, and then bemoan that the women they find by acting in this manner have no depth to them.
The women they describe exist. Of course they do. Just like the stereotypical player or frat boy exists. The problem is they're short sighted and lack the perspective to see that women are still human beings and thus equally as diverse as men. They don't hold the ability to shift perspective and see that for every woman who "shit tests" their (potential)/partner there's a dude manipulating situations and playing games on the opposite end to get laid.
To me, what I see, is that the women these guys are dating or chasing are probably a lot more similar to them than they'd like to admit. They seem made for one another. And they'll both find respective areas to bitch and complain about the inhumanity of the other instead of actually engaging one another in an adult conversation.
That all being said, they do bring up some double standard issues, but in a less than constructive manner. Everything is a comparison there. I see a topic on male rape and how the situation wound up with a woman victim blaming. There is value in bringing up that the situation flipped would be taken a lot more serious, but the message there was spite instead of analogy. I can imagine it's hard to separate emotion from such a horrible event, and I get a need for a place to vent.
I think this sub's main transgression is the lack of any opposing opinions being present. They come off as anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "sheeple" living in the dark. So no, I don't think they're trying to legitimize anything because I think they're very firmly cemented in their ideas and as such this place serves as nothing more than confirmation bias.
The one part where I can kind of empathize is that there's a lot of pressure on men to find a woman, and most of the work of this process is done by a man. Women asking out men is far less common, and not expected of women. If men use places like online dating they're usually derided as well. Meeting women with common interests becomes a difficult proposition because more and more avenues start to close off. A bar or club isn't going to show you anything but physical compatibility. If you start doing activities you enjoy in which women are present, though, to ask them out in these settings is often thought of to be offensive. I've heard many a time the argument "That's not why they're there, to be hit on" and I mean, it's true. But that makes partner selection quite difficult, and so we wind up with disillusioned people winding up dating a pool of incompatible or disillusioned people.
Sorry if this got long. I'm long winded.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: It's an ethos. You don't need to be around people who abide by the ethos to understand its tenets.### Human: You have to be in the right mindset to understand what they're saying. Looking from the outside in is no way to understand something.### Assistant: They post their tenets in the sidebar: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/12v1hf/almost_a_hundred_subscribers_welcome_newcomers/
They explicitly explain their beliefs. I can read and understand that much the same way I can read and understand the tenets of socialism. I don't need to have hung out with socialists to have a meaningful discussion on the merits of the ethos.### Human: Depends on whether we feel like "boils down to" means the core of the stated philosophy or the core of the community's attitudes, statements, and behaviors amongst one another and in practice. I do favor treating these separately, but don't personally feel either one is inherently more important.
Though from reading hot posts, one can arguably get a rough sense of the latter as well (while the sidebar is more the former). |
### Human: CMV: I don't think being a mother is the hardest job in the world.### Assistant: I think you're attacking a straw man.
Some things no one means by this statement:
1. It's the most complicated job.
2. It's the most difficult job.
3. It's the most physically exhausting job.
4. It's the job requiring the most education.
5. It's the most time-consuming job (though there's an argument there).
What they mean is that the combined mental, emotional, physical, and time on-call toll that it takes on someone is the greatest, and that we're physiologically wired to make it the top priority in our lives (oxytocin is a bitch of a chemical, let me tell you).
It's pretty hard to argue about this if you haven't been a parent (which is not indicated in your post as far as I can tell).
It's exactly because no one is trained for it, and because it is so varied, and challenges come up at the craziest times, and it's a constant, constant, unremitting, never-any-time-off grind of a job that you can't just quit or take a break from if you get tired of it that makes it "the hardest job" to many people.
Sure, some people might find it a breeze. Others might just do a poor job at it and end up with crappy adults, and who cares? Well, not them, obviously.
But if you *do* care, it's very hard to find a job that completely takes over your life and changes it permanently the way that being a parent does.### Human: &#8710;
I think this is the best response I can get. I see how it is kind of a straw man argument, even though some people do genuinely think all five of those points are true. The fact that someone is so invested in their child makes it appear to them that it is the hardest job in the world. So for them, it may appear to be the hardest job in the world because it does take over their life in a sense. Objectively I don't think it could ever be viewed as the hardest job in the world, but to some people it is their whole life.### Assistant: Ok, so turn tis around a bit. What do you think is the hardest job in the world and why?
I work away from home during the week so I am unable to support my wife as much as I'd like wit our 2-year old daughter. So, every single day she has to:
* Prepare food - and because she cares she prepares fresh food
* Entertain - Although she is getting more independent she still wants to be played with
* Educate - She needs to learn to talk, read, understand the world around her. This takes time
* If educating or entertaiing involves materials that might be messy then there's the cleaning up
* Toddlers often get ill as they develop their immune systems, ill adults can be cranky, toddlers more so
* Based on the above although sleeping patterns become more regular, growth spurts, illness and other things might mean she doesnt sleep so much which affects your own sleeping patterns
* It's **boring**, seriously, for an adult it involves little to no mental stimulation and it is a challenge to stay focused, imagine low-grade menial work
* Kids are very, very active. Depending on your own age & fitness it can be tiring running around after them
* Worry - if you care about what you're doing there is a lot of stress to deal with. Is your child ill? How ill? Are you doing the right things?
* It is truly 24/7 - it's very rare that you can truly switch off. Even if family or other people help the child is still your responsibility.
A lot of this will vary from person to person and child to child but until you are a parent yourself it is very hard to understand what is actually involved.### Human: Feel free to change my view on this, but it seems to me that the challenges your wife faces don't stem from being a parent per se (like you say, you are that too, but manage to avoid that long list of issues), but from her choice to be a stay-at-home parent. Like they say, it takes a village and it's very hard on one person to try to be that whole village every day all day. My parents both worked when my sister and I were growing up (in fact so did pretty much everybody I know, as that is the norm for the middle classes where I come from) and I intend to do the same with any kids I might have. There's a different set of challenges that crop up with that choice of course, but a lot of the stuff you mention (boredom, being the sole source of entertainment and education, running around behind an active toddler all day, never switching off) are abated.
I'd say rather that attempting to be the modern American idea of the perfect stay-at-home mother (at least as I as a non-American understand it) is very taxing job.
Also, please be wary of phrases such as "because she cares she prepares fresh food". It implies that parents that make or are forced into a different choice don't care.
(edit for typo)### Assistant: Firstly, I'm not American.
Secondly, yes, this situation my wife is in is a matter of personal circumstance and may not reflect the majority or even a sizeable minority, the point I was trying to emphasize is that the job is a very hard one for an individual to take on in line with what the OP stated:
> First, when I say being a mother, I mean any sort of role that is purely responsible for raising a child. This could be a stay at home dad, foster parent, etc. I just used the term mother because that is usually the default term.
It **is** a very difficult job for an individual and arguably is the hardest job. If you can share that job with your partner and family, friends, hired help then the role itself is much reduced. Much like any job. If I run an entire company by myself it will be hell on earth, but if I hire people to help out then the job becomes easier.
Regardless of what vision you or your culture has of the "perfect" parent assuming you want to give the best to your child it will be difficult. Sure, you can do as little or as much as you want,.
> Also, please be wary of phrases such as "because she cares she prepares fresh food". It implies that parents that make or are forced into a different choice don't care.
I'm not suggesting that the don't care but it does introduce an extra layer of effort that for whatever reason another person may choose (or be forced) not to do.### Human: Sorry, I remain unconvinced. The problem I have with this position is that it takes a task that the majority of the world's population do *in addition* to holding down a full-time job and describes it was "the hardest". If being a stay-at-home parent is "the hardest", then balancing parenting with a full-time job must be positively off the scale. As a child I watched the adults in my family work full-time, gets phds alongside working full-time, keep spotless homes, maintain happy marriages, raise us, take care of elderly, sick parents *and* find the time to prepare fresh food (which honestly is something every adult should be doing for themselves anyway). They must have been superheroes.
> It is a very difficult job for an individual and arguably is the hardest job. If you can share that job with your partner and family, friends, hired help then the role itself is much reduced. Much like any job.
Exactly though. Like most menial work, the day-to-day tasks of parenting (as opposed to the decision on strategy that OP mentioned) are only as hard as you make them. I'm sorry, but I have a huge amount of difficulty giving the "hardest job" award to people who have made a conscious choice to take a task that most everybody undertakes and purposefully *make it as hard as possible* by setting ridiculously high standards for themselves. To be clear, I don't begrudge them their choice, but it *is* a choice and one they presumably made because they enjoy it and can afford it. It they find they're not enjoying it anymore they can - and should - find a solution that's better suited to their needs and personalities. As you yourself say, you can do as little or as much as you want - as long as you love your child and take good care of them, it probably won't make much of a difference in the long run. |
### Human: Cups are terrible forms of measurement. CMV### Assistant: I'm not sure why you singled out cups as particularly bad, when you're really just advocating the Metric system. There's plenty of silliness in all the units - pounds force vs. pounds mass, anyone?
However, I think casual cooks will be the last people to support your proposition. Yes, professional bakers are already largely metric, and college students cooking for the first time might get confused, but the rest of us have mastered "use the scoopy cup for dry things, and the measuring cup for liquids". We all have at least a dozen cookbooks, all of which use the familiar units - what becomes of them? And with teaspoons and tablespoons- I know how much more garlic I want to add when it calls for a teaspoon- what do I do when to unit is 10ml? (Note- I have no idea what units metric measuring spoons use).
Not using the metric system is a burden to scientists, students, engineers, manufacturers and tourists. Cooks can do just fine with their cups.### Human: > Not using the metric system is a burden to scientists, students, engineers, manufacturers and tourists. Cooks can do just fine with their cups.
And people trying to learn how to cook or looking up recipes from outside the US.
Seriously, "just add 3/4 cup and 1/32 inch of x" is horribly annoying.### Assistant: "A stick of butter" is another brilliant one.### Human: It's a 1/2 cup, FYI.### Assistant: How many Libraries of Congress per VW Beetle?### Human: [Depends.](http://xkcd.com/691/) |
### Human: CMV: The first German Officer killed by "The Bear Jew" in "Inglorious Basterds" is a hero. In fact, most of the soldiers killed were probably done so wrongly.### Assistant: I thought it was pretty clear that the German officer was being portrayed as heroic. In fact, if I remember, any named Wehrmacht soldier they kill is characterized somewhat sympathetically i.e. the new father celebrating his sons birth. That being said, the goal of the Basterds isn't just "to kill Nazis". They're a partisan terrorist force, and their goal is to disrupt German war operations and damage morale by creating fear. Sure, individual German soldiers maybe aren't particularly "Nazis" but they act in service of the Nazi regime, and are fair game for anyone who opposes the Nazis.### Human: I would disagree that their goal is to terrorize the Wehrmact and Nazi's equally, as Aldo himself states that the *only* thing the Basterds are there to do is "kill Nazi's".### Assistant: Because they're not differentiating (like most people wouldn't during the war) between actual Nazi's, member of the Nazi party, and German soldiers. I think /u/ucbiker put it well, they're partisan terrorist force, not the most nuanced of people.### Human: I can understand that they are not actually differentiating, but that still doesn't change my view that the German officer is a hero. He refused to divulge information that would have lead to the certain death of German soldiers.### Assistant: I actually agree with that. I think it's fairly obvious that the film is built in that manner. I simply meant to say that the Basterds objective is disruption of German military activity by any mean necessary. The fact Aldo says "kill Nazi's" is because he doesn't discriminate; anyone wearing a German uniform is a Nazi. |
### Human: I believe that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are very ignorant and generally do not care about people who are less fortunate than them. CMV.### Assistant: > "volunteer slavery"
Please define slavery, then, because as I define it "voluntary" slavery is a contradiction.
In an "ancient" society that didn't have too much human interaction, is a hunter enslaved when he hunts? He pretty much _has_ to hunt; if he doesn't, he won't get any food and he'll die. Is he being enslaved, then? By whom?
---
I'm an AnCap (or at least AnCap leaning). My two favorite "one-liners" about libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism are these:
* "I would not use a gun to build a library." -- Penn Jillette
* "Force is a poor substitute for persuasion." -- I think Adam Kokesh
This is what libertarianism ultimately boils down to for me. The government's authority comes ultimately from force. Even if I think something is wrong/stupid, if I wouldn't hold a gun to someone's head and make them act otherwise, I don't think the government should be doing it.
Companies are paying people very poorly? That's bad. I'd go and tell people that they might be under-selling their own labor. I'd tell people that they should try to acquire more skills and make themselves more valuable. Maybe I'd even tell people to avoid that company because I don't like how they're paying their workers. I might try and talk with the CEO and say that their employees should be paid more. I would not point a gun at the company's CEO and make them pay their employees more.
---
More from the Penn Jillette piece, since I think it's worth seeing in context:
> If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
> Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
> The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea.### Human: That is a bullshit argument. However, to be consistent, we would have to pay someone to forcibly (at gunpoint) keep him and everybody like him, his children and grandchildren from using said library, let him die on the street in front of the hospital, let his house burn down.### Assistant: > That is a bullshit argument.
Would you care to expand on that?
> However, to be consistent, we would have to pay someone to forcibly (at gunpoint) keep him and everybody like him, his children and grandchildren from using said library, let him die on the street in front of the hospital, let his house burn down.
Um, what? It sounds like you're talking about keeping Penn and his descendants from using a library or a hospital? It's certainly the right of library or hospital owners to choose to keep people from using their property.### Human: >It's certainly the right of library or hospital owners to choose to keep people from using their property.
If someone wanted to use a facility but refused to pay, how would you prevent them from using that facility? You would have to use force. so now those who pay for the facility to run have to force others not to behave a certain way. Why do they have the right to do so? Because they are the owners of the facilities. They pay for them to run.
Now lets imagine there is an organized system of facilities and services that a group of people pay for. Others who don't pay for these things want to use them, and want to benefit from them, and are willing. Those who own and pay for the system of facilities and services have to force those who don't pay to stay away. Now you have a huge division within a single government. Eventually you will have tons and tons of collectivized groups that break up the population. They will become more independent until they see no more reason to associate with the other groups. They don't value the same things, and want to separate themselves from those who don't agree with them.
This is a recipe for division and ultimately cessation.### Assistant: > Now you have a huge division within a single government.
I sort of lost you there... what's the division here? Between people who own/maintain facilities and those that use them?
> Eventually you will have tons and tons of collectivized groups that break up the population. They will become more independent until they see no more reason to associate with the other groups. They don't value the same things, and want to separate themselves from those who don't agree with them.
And now I've really lost you... how do you foresee this occurring? |
### Human: [Meta] CMV, taking a quote out of context and only responding with that, or a series of them, should not be allowed in this, or any other debate based subreddit.### Assistant: Most of the time when people do this on /r/changemyview it's to respond to a certain reason for why the person holds their view. If the person holds their view for multiple reasons, it makes sense to respond to each reason individually. This is made easier by taking one or two sentences for the reasoning to summarize what the comment is a response to. Basically, it makes it easier to break down a view and respond to different reasons behind it.### Human: While I can see this as the intended reason for these kind of posts, the problem lies in the idea that what I was explaining happens far more often, and will almost always skew the conversation away from the intended topic, simply because you are no longer examining what they said, instead examining your interpretation of a single part of what they are saying.
Looking at why a person thinks what they do isn't providing anything for that person either, typically it just makes them angry, in my experience.### Assistant: If the view expressed in the original post gets skewed by someone taking something out of context, it is then the responsibility of the original poster to explain his/her view (which is generally what happens). Commenters in this thread are trying to change the views of the posters in this thread, so there isn't any reason to try to take things out of context since this will do nothing to change the view of the poster.
Also, providing some reasons behind why someone holds their view is done so that commenters don't have to figure out the reasoning behind a view themselves. This is what stops people from initially misunderstanding the view of the original poster.### Human: I'm not claiming that these kind of posts have no redeeming factors, only that the cons outweigh the pros, and that people using these posts in an intentionally aggravating or misleading manor is a major problem in this, and many other subreddits.
I agree with most of what you say about these kind of posts, I just feel that people are abusing these kind of posts, and tarnishing the community in general.
As for the bit about why a person hold a certain view, I honestly think that it's the OP's job to specify that if they feel it's relevant. For example, I posted this because I noticed a huge number of them over the last few weeks, and felt that it should be addressed, as well as my personal experience with replies like these. I did not feel it was necessary to state this, as the reasons why I hold the view are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
If I'm completely off as to what you mean, please let me know, I've had a pretty long day and might just be misunderstanding.### Assistant: The thing is, the commenters on this sub comment with the goal of changing someone's view. Most people understand that taking something out of context to try to change someone's view isn't really effective, especially on the internet. I don't think people are purposely trying to take things our of context on this sub, but rather are interpreting someone's views differently.
The reasons why you hold your view might be irrelevant to the fact that you hold your view, but they are necessary for other people to be able to try to change your view. If people didn't explain why they hold their views in this sub, then the first comment would be someone asking why they hold their view every time.### Human: If it is so important that the first post in every thread would be that question, it should just be required to answer it to circumvent the issue.### Assistant: The problem with that is if a thread gets a lot of comments the "why" for OP's view could get buried in the comments, causing new commenters to ask the same questions (why/clarification questions) to OP. It's easier to have the OP clarify their view beforehand instead of forcing the OP to answer clarification questions over and over after they post their view. |
### Human: CMV: Whilst experienced, Hillary Clinton has rarely been on the right side of history, and therefore, is undeserving of the nomination.### Assistant: As great as it would be to have politicians who knew what people would want in 10 years, expecting that is a little impractical. After all, none of us know what we are going to want in 10 years. Clinton's positions are consistently at or "ahead" of the views of the majority of Americans, and that's definitely good enough for me. LGBT rights, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Disability Rights, and the PATRIOT Act are all examples of this.
On international politics issues things are very different, and I don't think that's a good comparison to make. Her job with respect to international politics is not to do the right thing for the world. It's to do the right thing for America.### Human: don't act don't tell was a feel good bill that did literally nothing. clinton was NOT ahead of most americans on gay marriage. she only came on board with it in 2013...### Assistant: She was on **LGBT rights** which covers a lot more than wether or not some LGBT people can get married who otherwise weren't able to.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was a good thing. It was a stop-gap measure that protected people. I'm glad it no lobbed exists, but I'm also glad that it did exist then.### Human: except that opposing gay marriage is denying them a right, regardless of how much she was otherwise in support of the LGBT community. that is not supporting LGBT rights.### Assistant: I would recommend you go read /u/eh_Politico 's comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5bmsxa/comment/d9q211y?st=IV8PAPK5&sh=531396b9) . Even though she wasn't pro same-sex marriage, she's been one of our most ardent and long time supporters### Human: i don't feel that being against our right to marriage makes her a supporter. her actions speak louder than her words. as obama said in '08, "she'll say anything and do nothing". if she had truly been a "ardent" supporter, she wouldn't have been spouting the "marriage is between a man and a woman" line for as long as she did.
also, /u/eh_politico makes it seem like clinton stopped being against it in the 90s... [this is not the case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I)### Assistant: If you want to make "pro LGBT" mean "supports same sex marriage" sure, but that's a shitty point of view that ignores a half dozen more important issues and is erasive of al the LGBT people who are not in same sex relationships. The linked post isn't about same sex marriage. It's about the other issues that you're ignoring.### Human: same sex marriage was one of the longest and hardest uphill battles the LGBT community has fought. pretending it wasn't is erasure of the struggle of people who fought for years to make it happen.
you're dodging the fact that hilliary was fighting against LGBT rights until recently by trying to act like this doesn't effect all the parts of the LGBT community, but it does. stop twisting the narrative. the fact is that before, a cis, hetero man could only marry a cis, hetero woman. anything else was illegal and hilliary fought to keep it that way. now any consenting adult can marry and consenting adult. that's not erasure, that's equality. that was a hard fought battle and a hard earned right hillary did not want us to have.
don't get me wrong, i'm glad she's on board now, but she was against us long after the majority of the american people were ready to stop denying us our rights.### Assistant: what pro lgbt rights bill did she ever block? If you want to believe that the whole history of the LGBT rights movement began and ended with same sex marriage, then you've got a big pile of history books to read. She was fighting for aids research funding while you were in diapers.### Human: >what pro lgbt rights bill did she ever block?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
>She was fighting for aids research funding while you were in diapers.
you assume a lot. doesn't make for a very good argument. |
### Human: CMV: Accusing children (or adults) with ADD/ADHD of just being lazy is ignorant and dangerous.### Assistant: I think by and large these kinds of sentiments are based on a perception (right or otherwise) that ADD/AHDH are vastly overdiagnosed in the modern world, and that what *most* kids really need is discipline.
As a parent of 2 kids with actual ADHD, I know what it's like, and I sympathize with your viewpoint, but I've certainly seen a lot of kids whose diagnoses are... questionable at best.### Human: I'll admit I haven't done enough research for myself to be able to decide whether or not I believe ADHD/ADD are overdiagnosed, they very well could be. I guess what I'm trying to say is because of the perception that they're overdiagnosed, it seems to me like some people assume that just means they aren't real conditions and doctors just slap the label on the kid, give them some pills and send them on their way. I'm not worried so much about parents who believe their child doesn't have ADHD/ADD and they choose to discipline them instead of medicating them, I worry about parents who choose to believe that ADHD/ADD is just a fancy term for lazy and punish kids who really need medication or psychiatric help.### Assistant: Just a quick scholar search I did, filtering out data from before 2012 (reasoning that such effects would be heavily dependent on context):
>Conclusions: Therapists do not adhere strictly to diagnostic manuals. Our study suggests that overdiagnosis of ADHD occurs in clinical routine and that the patient's gender influences diagnosis considerably. Thorough diagnostic training might help therapists to avoid these biases. [(Brüchmuller et al., 2012)](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/80/1/128/)### Human: Thank you for this. My son is seven and being tested next week. I don't want this label. I don't want the drugs. I've started working on study habits that are supposed to help. Play outside before homework. Play instrumental music while he's studying. Let him fidget...
He's great at math, it's the reading he's struggling/very behind with. This alone should point away from ADHD, right?### Assistant: Please, for your sake and you child's, don't be afraid of a diagnosis. ADHD is not a curse, it's just something you deal with. But neither of you will be able to deal with it if you are in denial. You seem to be doing good already in looking for ways to help. Just remember that if it is ADHD, your child isn't just lazy. It's very common for kids diagnosed with ADHD to develop self worth issues later in life because we always blame ourselves for not being able to get things done. We call ourselves lazy and pieces of shit who can't get themselves together, and it's very easy for that to become a self fulfilling prophesy.
Edit: I have also always been very good with math. I did poorly in school in reading and English because I have a lot of trouble with writing, and I was always reading my own books, so I never read for school.### Human: I'm a pretty patient parent. I'm not afraid of the diagnosis, I'm weary of over diagnosis and drugs. We use the word "focus" to try and snap him in.
He's been read to almost every day of his seven years. From day one. I know he's bright mathematically. He's even engaged in the math work. It's the reading and learning to read he seems averse to.### Assistant: Hehe, I hope you didn't take any of what I said as criticism, it wasn't intended to be. You sound like you're already doing great by him. I've always been the same way with writing. I've always been bad at finding the right words, so a writing assignment in school that should have taken 20 minutes took me 2 hours. It's very easy to internalize that stress and blame yourself for it.
I wasn't diagnosed until my late 20's, and I often think about how my life would have been different if I was diagnosed and started meds earlier. Please, don't be afraid of starting medication. It has helped me amazingly. Definitely be wary, get a second option (or third!) if it seems a doctor just wants to throw meds at your child so you will go away. If you do choose to start medication, keep a close eye on him and talk to him about how it makes him feel and what it changes. Just remember that medication isn't a crutch or a sign of weakness. |
### Human: CMV: Jail Sentences and the Death Penalty should only be used to remove dangerous people from society. No one inherently deserves to be punished.### Assistant: It is a reason not to do it.
Think about it like this, if stealing in real life was as easy as pirating online, wouldn't you be a little tempted? But what stops a lot of people from shoplifting? For some it is morals, but who would really feel guilty about stealing from target or wal mart? The law has to stop us sometimes### Human: I get that sometimes you can't stop people from committing crimes, but using punishment to deter them kind of seems like ruling with an iron fist. What I'm trying to say here is that society in general doesn't even seem to care about other ways to deter crime, because in their minds people who commit crimes inherently deserve to be punished, but even if the only way to stop crime was to put all criminals in jail, it still isn't something they deserved, it's just a tragic outcome of the situation, and that's where I feel most people disagree with me on the subject.### Assistant: Do you have any alternative deterrents in mind?### Human: The best way to deter crime is to put more funding into education and planned parenthood programs. Stopping crime before it happens is better than punishing you after the fact.### Assistant: Educated people commit crimes too. I suspect most people who commit fraud are at least somewhat well-educated, for example. If there's no threat of punishment, what's to stop a person from committing fraud to cheat another person and take their money? |
### Human: I believe the Daily Show has become nothing but an opinion column and Jon Stewart is a hypocrite for criticizing the news. CMV### Assistant: > but never once criticizes MSNBC
Well I've got you there. Stewart goes after MSNBC quite a lot. Here he is attacking the entire network for its insipid stories, moronic guests and idiotic framing of national news stories and generally being a pile of crap.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-19-2012/on-topic---cable-news---msnbc
Here he goes after both MSNBC and Fox for their submoronic 2012 election coverage:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-14-2012/march-14--2012---pt--2
Making fun of Chuck Todd for flipping off the camera:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-14-2011/moment-of-zen---chuck-todd-gives-the-finger
For covering Lindsay Lohan instead of a historic gay rights directive:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-24-2011/there-s-something-about-marry
Here he's having a laugh at MSNBC's 'Lean Forward' campaign and Fox & CNN's dumb-as-bricks response:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-14-2010/the-best-f--king-news-team-won-t-stop-ever
On Keith Olbermann's firing, and MSNBC attacking Stewart for making a false equivalence between Fox and MSNBC:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-8-2010/msnbc-suspends-keith-olbermann
All of The Daily Show's videos on the site are tagged, so you can find a lot of him going after Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC, CNN and the like. You can argue that he holds Fox to a different standard, but you're just wrong to say he never criticizes MSNBC or the other networks.
What Jon Stewart really is is a media critic and a comedian. He goes after stupidity in political news wherever he finds it, and there is more than enough stupidity in the major cable news channels to keep him in business for the rest of his life. He's also very good at it. He's raised the craft of tearing giant hilarious holes in people's arguments & attitudes into an Emmy winning art form. And thank god because somebody has to do it. There are other shows that cover some of the same ground (Bill Maher, Fox & Friends), but I'd say none of them are anywhere near as creative or effective in their approach.
I think he does have a liberal bias, and that comes across on his show as well, so you're right about that. But I think he's so good at blowing holes in stupidity, lies, propaganda, phony reasoning, etc. that he brings more to the table than just polemics for the left. Jon Stewart's one of the best critics of political discourse in the country, and that makes him valuable to everyone even if his viewpoint leans to the left.### Human: Not to mention his 40+ minute interview with Rachel Maddow where he argues that MSNBC is not that different from Fox. Overall, he argues that the entire news industry has become more similar to him (commenting on news rather than honest reporting) and how that is not a good thing.### Assistant: Of course, his finest moment was his appearance on Crossfire in which he implored both of the hosts to "Stop hurting America."### Human: And may have been or at least contributed to the catalyst that ended up destroying the show.### Assistant: Christ yes. That alone will cement his legacy (probably not actually). Anyway, the new crossfire is actually not as bad... yet. Something that came as a massive fucking surprise to me, considering Newt Gingrich and SE Cupp are two of the hosts. |
### Human: CMV: Using violent language, threats, and emotional abuse in the name of feminism undermines the cause, and it is acceptable for me as a male to object to that.### Assistant: I wonder if you only think this is an attribute of feminism. Every single movement that numbers past a certain amount of people have had members take more aggressive stances. You saw this in the civil rights movement. You see this in environmentalist movement and you also see this in Mens' rights. Hell that sub even has a link to a sub called "The Pussy Pass"
To single out feminism here seems like a stretch. Every single group has had the, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore crowd."### Human: What's wrong with /r/pussypass?### Assistant: It presents the privilege most women have in law as entirely the fault of women, and its users have sunken to an incredibly low pit of misogyny and woman-hating through blanketed statements and extreme paranoia about how all women are out to get them.### Human: Like how feminism presents any privilege males have as entirely mens' fault creating a base that has sunken to an incredibly low pit of misandry?
Also I've never seen much misogyny on that board, just bitter dudes.### Assistant: Yeah, /r/feminism does that. **Not** feminism as a blanket term. You asked whats wrong with /r/pussypass, and I told you. No need to be so defensive. Its a toxic place. |
### Human: CMV: Gender fluidity is not a thing.### Assistant: Gender is a physical thing. People tend to say things like sex is what is in your pants, and gender is what's in your head. Or that gender is just a social construct (it turns out that sex is also a social construct, but it's a bit complicated, and not part of this post).
So, when someone has an intersex condition they have either ambiguous genitalia, gonads or chromosomes. Currently the brain isn't included in the definition of intersex. That said, there is pretty [strong evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Brain_structure) that being trans is a neurological condition. In my opinion it should be considered a congenital neurological intersex condition.
Now, if you read the first few paragraphs you'll find out two things: first, the BSTc is hormone aplastic (it doesn't change shape based on the level of sex hormones), and second, that it doens't differentiate until adulthood, but we have trans people being certain about their gender well before then, so we have to look elsewhere for a cause (at least for early onset gender things).
If the BSTc doesn't change shape, then it's obviously not relevant to genderfluidity, though being part way between the two sizes might account for gender being looser than normal. But what about the parts of the brain that are sensitive to sex hormones and do change based on the pretense or absence of E or T? [This article](http://www.eje-online.org/content/155/suppl_1/S107.full) talks about the parts of the brain that *do* change based on hormone therapy. If someone's brain is not especially solidified because of the aplasitc parts being somewhere in the middle, then slight hormone fluctuations could well switch identity from one side to another. I'm not saying that that *is* how it works, since it's not a thing that has been studied all that much, but it's certainly well within the realm of possibility based on what we do know about gender.
Androgyny is based on appearance, and not identity. Agender is a thing, but it is not the same as gender fluid. Trans people don't or can't always get genital surgery, this doesn't make them any less of a man or woman than any other man or woman with a condition that caused them to lose their genitals.
The 'man changing in front of little girls' thing is a pretty big stereotype that doesn't really happen. Stalls are a thing, and most gender non-conforming people are well aware of the shape of their bodies, and bladder issues are a pretty big issue for a lot of trans people who have to hold their pee in all day because they can't use public washrooms without the risk of physical assault.
Generally if someone is genderfluid, they'll know you have no way of knowing they are identifying as that day, so they probably won't flip out at you. But you can always ask.### Human: &#8710; Thank you. That was the kind of explanation I was looking for. It is scientifically possible to not feel like one or the other, and androgyny doesn't define it well. I can accept gender fluidity as a state of being in someone's head. It doesn't exactly solve the legal and social ramifications of identifying as gender fluid though, and I still disagree with the change rooms thing but you have changed my core view.### Assistant: Excellent. Change rooms for gender fluid people is a sticky issue, but the easiest thing to do is to just make all such rooms gender neutral. There are western countries that do it already with no issue.### Human: Which countries?### Assistant: Very common in Europe. Most places don't label at all. A few label stalls with sanitary bins or urinals, but not by gender. It's also quite normal to use the "wrong" toilet when it's too busy or paper is missing or whatever. |
### Human: CMV: I (probably wrongly) think that the republican party hasn't, in the last two decades, been concerned with improving the country.### Assistant: [No Child Left Behind](http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/impact-no-child-left-behind-students-teachers-and-schools) via Stanford:
>Our results indicate that NCLB brought about targeted gains in the mathematics achievement of younger students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
So even if you discount efforts that Republicans earnestly believed would lead to quantifiable improvement (like legal guns reducing violent crime or low regulatory burden generating economic gains) there is at least that. I'd like to remind you that the supposed improvements from the left are controversial as well - for example, as a young, healthy man, I don't like any kind of socialized retirement or health plan; and as a competent worker, I have no use for unions.### Human: This seems weird to me, are you not planning on becoming an old frail person someday?### Assistant: I'm already saving for that eventuality, and I don't appreciate that the government has decided to forcibly administer its own retirement fund for me, that will be depleted by mismanagement and over-generosity by the time I need it.### Human: So lets say that your portfolio performs quite badly and you dont have enough money saved. Or maybe you get some expensive illness that costs most of your savings. These are very realistic situations and happen all the time.
You would prefer being left on the streets destitute compared to having to pay into a pension system for a safety net?
SSA says they are good to go for the foreseeable future and with a slight reduction in benefits will be stable for quite a long time.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html### Assistant: I can't think of any diversified, low-risk portfolio that could possibly perform worse than the 76% ROI given in your link. I could probably do better with a cash savings account. |
### Human: CMV: If porn is legal, prostitution should be legal### Assistant: I'm in agreement with your conclusion - prostitution should be legal - the problem I see with your view is that the premise doesn't really support the conclusion.
While prostitution and pornography both deal with sex and money, they are more different than similar and the reality of one tells us little about the other.
For example, by its very nature pornography is open to outside inspection and regulation. A government agent can today review a porn filmed 3 years ago to determine if it was made in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. The same would not be true for legal prostitution, which by its very nature would not be open and public, but rather private (in almost all circumstances). It would be almost impossible to verify whether or not the people who used the services of a prostitute 3 years ago were of legal age and used any and all required protection (even assuming you subjected prostitutes to a crushing level of record keeping).### Human: > The same would not be true for legal prostitution, which by its very nature would not be open and public, but rather private (in almost all circumstances).
The actual sex can be private. However, everything else can be open and public. Obviously, not public to your neighbor - but public to government agencies and outside intervention. It's like becoming a porn star except you don't have to be hung and you're not exploited on the internet. Also, you pay instead of being paid.### Assistant: Okay, so say I'm a government regulator and I want to ensure that Pam the Prostitute used condoms during each of her paid encounters over the past 3 months, how do I go about doing that?
Again, it's a bad comparison. There are vital differences between porn and prostitution. I don't disagree with your conclusion, I think it should be legal, but your argument doesn't support that conclusion.### Human: Okay, so say I'm a government regulator and I want to ensure that Pam the Pornstar had an SDI check in the last 3 months, how do I go about doing that? Or that Roger the director treated her well and paid her appropriately?
Your original premise of using filmed porn as verification is nonsense, all you can very from that is that the porn was indeed filmed.### Assistant: You would verify it the same way you'd verify the doctor who performed the test was licenced. |
### Human: I thin the word feminism has lost all meaning because of modern, western feminism and has become a movement of first world problems that has little connection to the original spirit of the movement. CMV### Assistant: I think you're sort of cherry-picking instances, looking at certain areas of the internet and assuming they represent the entirety of western feminist discourse. Yes there is a lot of frivolous, misguided content about feminism on the internet, but there is a lot of really important content as well--informative pieces that empower women to take charge of their sexualities (think lacigreen on youtube,) content about the importance of healthy, consent-based relationships [(like this one)](http://queerguesscode.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/un-memorizing-the-silence-is-sexy-date-script/), content about the need for equal wages and employment benefits, and of course dialogue about important political issues such as the right to abortion, healthcare coverage of birth control, etc. A lot of productive discussion was even facilitated by feminist websites and writers responding to the Steubenville rape case. I'm in India right now and you saw similar things in response to the recent infamous Delhi rape--lots of quality discussion on feminist platforms, but also a lot of poorly reasoned posts and ideas. Of course there's going to be lackluster (even bad) content in some places-- that happens within all large movements, especially in response to such high-visibility cases and events. What's important is that the good, fruitful discussions *are* taking place. You just need to look in the right places.
Some more minor points about things you said:
Slut-shaming and fat-shaming are not personal beliefs. If someone doesn't feel comfortable having too many sexual partners or if someone is not attracted to fat people, that's a personal opinion. What is not up to personal choice is the decision to shame, abuse, and marginalize others. You suggested that you believe these are both frivolous issues--I urge you to reconsider that stance. (Consider a prostitute, or even a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners being told that her rape isn't "legitimate" because she "probably liked it." Consider the "two-finger-test" applied by Indian authorities to judge whether a woman has actually been raped.) Slut-shaming, in particular, is integral to sexist power structures that exist today. Society has for a long time shamed women for actively seeking sexual pleasure, and fighting slut-shaming is a huge part of breaking that norm.
Your statement about not "imposing" beliefs on others in our free society also misses the point. Feminists rarely advocate arrests or mandated silencing in response to sexist speech. Freedom of expression, however, doesn't and shouldn't protect everyone from criticism. Daniel Tosh may be free to make a tasteless and offensive rape joke, but you'd better believe he should be heavily criticized for it. This is public discourse, and it is valuable.### Human: For your first paragraph I agree completely. All equal rights issues I am behind 100%. Perhaps I cherry-picked a bit, but I was addressing things that I felt were negative and needed to be addressed and have people explain why they feel that way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc.
However, I stand by my stance on slut shaming as not as as big of an issue. While I am against it, it is, in my view part of a larger problem with the way we view sexuality as a culture, not something that just affects women. For example, the counterpart to slut shaming for women is virgin shaming for men. As you may have guessed, I am male and growing up I was terrified if that I did not loose my virginity soon enough no one would ever love me because we live in a culture that tells males that if the are not able to have sex, they are a failure. The movie "the 40 year old virgin" was a great example of how sexless men are shamed. that movie would never exist with a 40 year old female virgin as it can still be seen as a virtue (wrongly so, again a problem with slut shaming.) That leads men to try to have sex with as many women as possible to help their self worth and feeds into the slut shaming problem. So I'm not saying slut shaming is not a problem, just that it is a part of a bigger, symbiotic problem that needs to be addressed as a society if we are ever going to have a healthy view on sex.
Although I agree wholeheartedly that the "she liked it" because she is promiscuous is disguising, as is any abuse of someone like that, male or female.### Assistant: While your point about virgin-shaming is well taken, I still don't think that the way men are virgin-shamed even comes close to comparing to the violent, destructive way in which women are slut-shamed. Slut-shaming is part and parcel of victim-blaming (she shouldn't have worn that, she shouldn't have gotten drunk, etc. Just look at the people who sympathized with the Steubenville rapists-- since of course a girl who would dare wear a short skirt and get drunk at a party was "asking for it.") I don't really see any cases of virgin-shaming actually legitimizing violation or violence. I'd be interested to hear any examples you have.### Human: No absolutely not. I agree, as I have said, using slut-shaming to excuse rape is awful.But that would fall under the basic human rights category and I agree there. I mean what I was referring to is just acceptance for promiscuity by women is not on par with other civil rights issues. I have felt slut shaming and rape are different things, but I could see how one could lead to the other and I suppose you have changed my view there, I didn't think of it like that. Although those are the extreme cases, and I meant just day to day social problems one might have from slut shaming. It's a bad thing, but that is my moral stance. If someone else is against promiscuity, they have that right as long as it does not hurt anyone.### Assistant: There are plenty of problems with slut shaming that extend beyond its connection to victim blaming. Women are constantly judged by their appearance to uphold some standard of class. If we look in a professional setting, if you are deemed as acting or looking slutty you could not get the job you are applying for, be the talk of your office workplace, be bullied about your sexuality to the point of needing to leave your job, and possibly sexually harassed as your employer/coworkers see you as giving an open invitation with the way you act or dress (which that does start to go into victim blaming). To be a successful woman in business generally, you have to be very guarded about your personal life and also about the way you dress in those settings to not show too much of any one part of your body. This varies by field obviously, but I can tell you having worked for a career service that recruiters will judge a woman based on her clothing and their perceived level of sexuality. Those who appear "slutty" will not be hired/interviewed. So its not as simple as slut shaming being a component of victim blaming for rape but also a component of how a woman has to think everytime she gets dressed for work or sharing about a relationship if they are unsure it won't be a very long term one. |
### Human: CMV: The onus is not on an atheist to argue their 'view'.### Assistant: The onus is on the atheist to argue their view if they want the view to be accepted as true by those that don't believe it. There is nothing special about atheism in this regard.
If the atheist doesn't give a shit what the other thinks then he has no onus to argue his view, but then neither does the religionist that doesn't give a shit about what the other believes.
The burden of proof lies on he who wants to prove something.### Human: That's not at all how epistemology works.
The onus is always tied to the initial claim. The initial claim is that of theists: that a god or gods exist. It's simply impossible to question a claim prior to that claim having existed.### Assistant: > That's not at all how epistemology works.
Maybe not, however it is how people work. If you don't care what the other guy believes you don't need to offer an explanation as to why he ought not to believe it. On the other hand if you do want the other fellow see the error of his ways you do need to argue your side even if your side is atheism. You don't see Dawkins et al keeping quiet do you?### Human: >Maybe not, however it is how people work.
No, that's not how people work. That's only how people compartmentalize, attempt to rationalize, and avoid questioning irrational beliefs when those beliefs have become strongly ingrained in one's sense of identity.
If someone claims that the number 37 is the best number, and another person questions that, *no one* doubts where the onus is. No large groups of people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that 37 is the best number. It's not tied to personal identity, and there's no emotional charge. Everyone can see the issue clearly in this case. Everyone can see that the onus is on the initial claim.
But, replace 37 with a deity, and suddenly everyone looses their minds.
> if you do want the other fellow see the error of his ways you do need to argue your side even if your side is atheism
The atheist side of the argument *is* epistemic in nature. That argument is that one should question the belief in something for which there is no proof.
What's so frustrating for atheists who debate these matters is that no one normally opposes that last statement -- until the belief in question is a theist's own religion, who then suddenly throws reason out the window.### Assistant: It doesn't matter how rational your belief is. It doesn't matter if you don't think you need to explain yourself. If you want to change someone's mind about something, then you have to make an argument. If you don't care what anyone else thinks, then you don't have to make an argument. It's as simple as that.### Human: > If you want to change someone's mind about something, then you have to make an argument
And that argument is that *one should question the belief in something for which there is no proof. *
That argument *is* epistemic itself.
You started your top level comment with the attempted epistemic statement regarding the onus being on the atheist, but when the conversation comes back to the fact the the opposing argument is epistemic itself, you suddenly dismiss epistemology.
Would you care to reconcile your simultaneous use of epistemology when it suits your argument, but your rejection of it when it doesn't?
The best I can make of your argument(and this is not an attempt to straw man you, but to understand your position) is that you think the onus should be on atheists because theists don't understand epistemology. My response stands that they then need to be educated in the philosophy of knowledge itself.
**This CMV is about where the onus lies.** Ignorance isn't an excuse for shifting the onus. The onus *always* lies with the initial claim. It is impossible for the onus to fall on any other position. That is part of what makes the onus the onus. Furthermore, there can be no question as to which position is the initial claim. It is causally impossible to question theism before it exists. Therefore theism is the initial claim, and the onus lies with it.### Assistant: > Would you care to reconcile your simultaneous use of epistemology when it suits your argument, but your rejection of it when it doesn't?
I don't know if anything I've said contradicts what was said before. But for the record, I'm a different person.
> The best I can make of your argument(and this is not an attempt to straw man you, but to understand your position) is that you think the onus should be on atheists because theists don't understand epistemology.
My argument would be that we aren't in debate club. There are no rules regarding how to have a dialogue.
You're getting too technical. You have no obligation to explain anything to anyone. Similarly, no one has any obligation to explain their views to you. The "onus" isn't on anyone.
What we have here are two groups who don't understand each other. They aren't obligated to talk to each other at all. If, however, you want to have a dialogue, then people are going to ask you to explain your views.
It accomplishes nothing to have a lengthy debate over who the onus technically falls on. You can choose to explain your views or not. Real world conversations aren't governed by debate club rules. The reality is that you hold a minority view and you'll need to argue your view if you want the majority to give it consideration.### Human: > But for the record, I'm a different person.
That would explain that. My sincere apology for the confusion.
> You're getting too technical.
The CMV title makes a specific, technical assertion. I was arguing to that point.
If we wanted to broaden the issue and make take it as less formal, then sure, no discussion has to take place at all. If we want to argue whether the onus is important or not, I'll argue that it is.
It's not really related to debate rules. The fundamental nature of knowledge doesn't change because the setting becomes less formal. The onus, and where it falls, is central to any discussion of a knowledge claim, which is exactly what theism is. Atheism only questions that knowledge claim, because it is asserted without proof.
Without acknowledging the onus, we could go around in circles forever:
Theist asserts theism is true.
Atheist questions that assertion.
Theist questions why the atheists is questioning the theist's assertion.
Atheists questions why the theists is question the atheist's questioning of the theist's assertion.
and so on...
The atheist doesn't really have any other point to make except that claims of knowledge require proof and must be falsifiable, and that theism is therefor invalid because it is a knowledge claim made without proof, and by nature, consists of unfalsifiable claims. If the theist chooses not to consider this point, than the discussion cant really progress. Not that there's much left to discuss after that. |
### Human: I think it is unreasonable for a transgendered person to be angry with me if I use the wrong gender/non gender neutral pronoun when referring to them. CMV### Assistant: This isn't a transgender thing. If you accidentally call an old (cis) woman "sir," there's a decent chance they'll be grouchy with you too.
If it's done as an accident, then no, calling someone by the wrong gender pronounce is not a cause to get angry with someone. But (1) the person may perceive the gender mix-up to have been done intentionally -- which is an offensive thing to do. So the person may (incorrectly) perceive themselves as responding in a way that would be appropriate, if they had been correct in perceiving the slight in being intentional. And (2) in any event, the person is likely going to be embarrassed and their feelings are going to be hurt by the mixup, which leads some people to get snappish and lash back. Again, not an excuse for their behavior, but the cause is understandable.
Just apologize and move on. That's how you handle unintentional social slights.### Human: I don't really believe that. If you say 'sir' to an older woman, you can (and probably will) correct yourself. If someone looks like a woman and is mad at me for calling him/her 'she', I'm not apologising when they go ape-shit. Being a minority does not give you a free pass to just fuck with people. It seems that OP wasn't at fault and had a lengthier conversation with the transgender. If that's not the case, you are right. If it is, I believe I am.
Edit: Ninja edit.### Assistant: Are you saying that you'd apologize to a cis person for getting their gender wrong, but you wouldn't apologize to a trans person for getting their gender wrong...?
I'm not sure if I'm reading you right. But if that's what you meant, that'd just make you an asshole.### Human: No. But the mistake is way more easily made. Therefore you should have some kind of notion as a trans that you shouldn't just chew them out.### Assistant: "A trans *person*", jesus christ. Trans and transgender are adjectives, not nouns.### Human: Oh dear lord. I don't usually have to use them. Sorry. I explicitly said I don't mean to offend anyone and you come back with this? Tip: next time, leave the first sentence out. Else you are proving my point, you see?### Assistant: What point am I proving? I'm not even trans.
Josuwa stops replying when he realizes he can't use me as a scapegoat for ~angry trans people~. Typical.### Human: way to fulfill the stereotype though! :) |
### Human: CMV:When people ascribe anarcho-capitalist views to all libertarians they are attempting to dismiss all libertarian ideas and beliefs as crazy### Assistant: Is the alternate view that people just aren't that familiar with all libertarian views implausible in some way to you? They're not that mainstream- if you told someone that their view of libertarianism really better reflects anarcho-capitalism, their response would probably be something along the lines of "What's anarcho-capitalism?"
Also, do you think that people *actually* think libertarians are like this? On the internet, and on college campuses, the prevailing negative view of libertarians is something like "spoiled rich kids who don't understand how life and disadvantages actually work." You can argue that it's inaccurate- but it's hardly anarcho-capitalism.### Human: >Is the alternate view that people just aren't that familiar with all libertarian views implausible in some way to you?
Yes that is definitely plausible. So the information they get stems from whatever media coverage is, which would come back to painting it as crazy to dismiss it. Their knowledge of anarcho-capitalism is not really what is relevant. It's the underlying beliefs that I'm concerned with. So people are told something like "libertarians think there should be no regulations and want to get rid of drivers licenses." They are told an anarcho-capitalist belief under the pretense of it being a general libertarian belief, making it easy for them to dismiss libertarian beliefs later.
I think spoiled rich kids who don't understand how life and disadvantages actually work still comes from people being told the more extreme "no government intervention whatsoever" anarcho-capitalist views as being libertarian.### Assistant: >So the information they get stems from whatever media coverage is, which would come back to painting it as crazy to dismiss it
The difference is in this case, it's not that people are somehow irrationally hostile to libertarian beliefs- the average person isn't deliberately trying to make libertarianism seem crazy to them because they're threatened by it. It's that they just don't really care enough about them to learn more after a negative first impression. This view is neither irrational or wrongly dismissive. People aren't obligated to care about every idea or ideology, especially if they don't lead with something persuasive.
>I think spoiled rich kids who don't understand how life and disadvantages actually work still comes from people being told the more extreme "no government intervention whatsoever" anarcho-capitalist views as being libertarian.
Definitely not. This comes from hearing libertarians say actual libertarian ideas, like eliminating social welfare programs or lowering tax rates.### Human: >This view is neither irrational or wrongly dismissive. People aren't obligated to care about every idea or ideology, especially if they don't lead with something persuasive.
It's not irrational but it is wrongly dismissive. If you are talking about politics then you absolutely are obligated to find the best ideas. You are talking about governing people's lives so it is imperative that you do so in the best way possible. This does not happen by dismissing ideas entirely because of what someone who doesn't subscribe to those ideas said about it.
"They" not leading with something persuasive is what I'm saying is the problem. Because it's not "they" discussing their own ideas, it's someone else discussing their ideas and painting it negatively by only discussing the most extreme version.
>This comes from hearing libertarians say actual libertarian ideas, like eliminating social welfare programs or lowering tax rates.
Kind of exactly my point. A libertarian idea is not eliminating *ALL* social welfare programs, just bad or inefficient ones. Anarcho-capitalists want all social welfare programs eliminated. [Here you can see someone speaking as a libertarian about libertarian ideas propose simply handing people a check instead of giving them food stamps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ&t=14m30s). Wanting a different or better social welfare program is different from wanting to eliminate all social welfare. Here, exactly, you have ascribed an anarcho-capitalist view to all libertarians.
Lowering tax rates isn't necessarily related to spoiled rich kids either. If libertarians want to lower taxes they want to do so for everyone, across the board, not simply the rich which would be more of my understanding of a Republican tax plan.### Assistant: > If you are talking about politics then you absolutely are obligated to find the best ideas.
There is no "best ideas" in politics. It's all choices about which values are most important to serve, and that's subjective.
The biggest difference I've seen between libertarians and leftward leaning people is that Libertarians want people to be free from government intervention, and leftists want people to be free from natural intervention (starvation, disease, systemic poverty).
Which of those is more important to you depends largely on how well off you are.
If you're a small business owner, and you're seeing taxes eat into your profits, that's that darn government intervention fucking you over.
If you're a teen mother with an abusive boyfriend, and you rely on state refuge funds to get a new apartment and start a new life, you thank god the government is there.### Human: I agree with you. But that dichotomy of what you want being based on your well-being is the traditional republican vs. democrat view. It's why, fundamentally, two parties can stay the same for so long. Because regardless of the other issues, as long as they are opposed on the basic "well-being" issue then people can easily pick their sides.
But there are other issues, and not everyone who thinks we should err on the side of liberty thinks that we shouldn't also help those in need, or provide a basic subsistence to everyone.
Okay, we don't need to find best, but rather better or worse. Still to be able to land on ideas that are better than the current situation they need to be heard and discussed. Dismissing them cannot improve the situation.
Macro-level things are not as subjective. Whether the economy, welfare of the people, employment, living conditions, are better can be measured. There are absolutely ways to improve the country. That goal is not helped when ideas are categorically dismissed.### Assistant: > but rather better or worse
Still subjective.
> Whether the economy, welfare of the people, employment, living conditions, are better can be measured. There are absolutely ways to improve the country. That goal is not helped when ideas are categorically dismissed.
Many of those things are mutually exclusive to one degree or another. We could employ everyone moving dirt back and forth, but it probably wouldn't be good for the welfare of the people, or the economy. We currently have the best economy in the world, hands down, but our percentage of people living in poverty is pretty stunning. Which of those is more important is entirely subjective, and depends on one's upbringing, current wealth, eduction, etc.
There are absolutely people who've already decided which of those is most important to them, and are willing to discard ideas that disagree with them on this fundamental level.
More directly, there are people who think "the best government is that which governs least", and those who think "the best government is that which provides the best outcome for it's worst off citizens".
Those people have fundamentally different views of what government should do, and therefore are entirely within their rights to ignore ideas that are in direct opposition to what they're trying to accomplish.### Human: By what objective measure do we have "the best economy in the world?"
I doubt you can get ten randomly selected Americans to agree on what constitutes a "good" economy.### Assistant: fair enough.
Largest is actually the only claim we hold. We're only 19th in GDP/capita, and 10th in GNI |
### Human: CMV: Galileo's reputation and the Catholic Church's resulting anti-science image, are both undeserved.### Assistant: Let's take this point by point
> Was Galileo brilliant?
Plenty of great scientists had beliefs outside of their famous discoveries that we can easily laugh at now, from Newton's obsession with alchemy to Aristotle's rejection of primitive theories of atom and evolution along with his belief that men have more teeth than women. Galileo made important discoveries, which is why he's remembered. That's what matters first and foremost.
> Was Galileo noble?
I'd say it shouldn't matter to this discussion. If Einstein faced the same persecution we wouldn't be talking about how he was a dick to his wife.
> Did Galileo discover dramatic new evidence?
Absolutely, and the line of reasoning you're using to call that into question is something I informally refer to as the hype fallacy, which is the attempt to discredit or diminish an accomplishment by pointing out that it falls short of an exaggeration. Galileo discovered important and highly influential evidence.
> Was the Catholic Church closed-minded?
I'll certainly concede that the Catholic Church was less closed-minded than they could have been, but even your own example with Foscarini's book works against you. Sure, individual members might have been more open-minded than others, but the official policy of the church was still to ban the book. Just the fact that they had and exercised the power to ban books and persecute people who challenged their dogma, or at least did so is an impolite way, makes them an opponent to science.
> Was Galileo prosecuted for telling the truth?
I suspect that you're correct about Pope Urban VIII being far less concerned with scientific theories and much more interested in making sure no one got away with insulting him. But again, the fact that the Catholic Church had the power to put a person like that in a position of power over scientists makes it an opponent of science.
> Far less of a grand story of a battle between faith and reason, and far more a battle between two vain, pompous, blowhards who both thought they knew everything about everything that mattered.
The difference here is that one blowhard didn't have the power to arrest the other for what he wrote. The history of science is full of blowhards disagreeing with each other. But when one side takes it beyond disagreement and presumes the power to suppress and oppress even the pettiest, most impolite of scientists, they become of opponent of science.### Human: > Galileo made important discoveries, which is why he's remembered. That's what matters first and foremost.
But he wasn't even consistent in his application of the discoveries (see relative motion)
>Absolutely, and the line of reasoning you're using to call that into question is something I informally refer to as the hype fallacy, which is the attempt to discredit or diminish an accomplishment by pointing out that it falls short of an exaggeration.
But the legacy of Galileo is that he discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. But that isn't what he discovered. He discovered that there were things that didn't revolve around the sun. So can he really have been said to discover what the legacy claims? Not really, so my view is that Galileo isn't as important as his popular myth maintains.
>Just the fact that they had and exercised the power to ban books and persecute people who challenged their dogma, or at least did so is an impolite way, makes them an opponent to science.
But were they using this power as an opponent of science, or as an opponent of people who called the Pope names? If they really wanted to oppose science, why didn't they ban any of the publication or pronouncements that Galileo made on the subject much earlier. And why did the Pope ask for a book covering all of the different theories.
>But again, the fact that the Catholic Church had the power to put a person like that in a position of power over scientists makes it an opponent of science.
You're making it out that merely possessing the power makes them bad. That seems rather unfair. Many people possessed the power to do this, but the Catholic Church is singled out as an opponent of science.### Assistant: > Not really, so my view is that Galileo isn't as important as his popular myth maintains.
Then your view is tautologically true. By definition nothing lives up to an exaggerated account of itself. We can take it as a given that a high school level understanding of Galileo and his conflict with the Church is an oversimplification. The argument I'm making here is that you're giving disproportionate weight to the account being blown out of proportion, and even in correct proportion the account of events paints Galileo as an important if flawed scientist and the Church as an opponent of science.
>But were they using this power as an opponent of science, or as an opponent of people who called the Pope names? If they really wanted to oppose science, why didn't they ban any of the publication or pronouncements that Galileo made on the subject much earlier. And why did the Pope ask for a book covering all of the different theories.
That only demonstrates that the Catholic Church was less oppressive than they could have been. Remember, Galileo was charged with suspicion of heresy, not slander. The very fact that such a thing as heresy existed, and the Church enforced it, requiring scientists to be careful about what they wrote and how they wrote it makes them an opponent of science. You seem to be under the impression that the Church was only an anti-scientific institution if they were cartoonishly evil about it.### Human: Heresy covers a broad range of topics, the vast majority of them nothing to do with science.
My view about them being anti-science is if they said explicitly in their dogma that the universe was way X and that any other descriptions or research claiming it is way Y is heresy. The fact that it was "suspicion of heresy" rather than out and out heresy suggests that things are more complicated.
Your argument "but they could have been an enemy of science therefore they are one" is absurd. Lots of people have the capacity to do lots of things. Capacity is not the same as actuality.### Assistant: At this point, I'm unclear as to what part of your CMW your feel hasn't been adequately challenged.
Here's the shortlist of points on which it seems you agree with /u/Glory2Hypnotoad (or at least points on which you haven't sufficiently explained your disagreement):
* Galileo did scientific work which is historically important on its own merits.
* The Catholic Church used its authority to censor Galileo and his work, which was historically important on its own, based on the claim that Galileo's scientific work was heretical.
This seems like it should be sufficient to address your CMV on its own. It seems like your objections center around the following:
* The importance of Galileo's work is not *as* great as many people think, based on the popular story of the Catholic Church censoring his work.
* The Catholic Church wasn't *as* close-minded and parochial as many people think, based on the fact that they illegitimately censored Galileo for his historically-important scientific work.
Both of these points are quite valid. But neither explains why the story of Galileo wouldn't be a *great* example of the danger of allowing religious or ideological leaders authority over scientific exploration. And that's *exactly* what the story of Galileo is popularly promoted as. |
### Human: I believe that if Washington can have the Redskins, I can have a team called the Black People. CMV### Assistant: I'm not sure what you're view is... but a team called the "Black People" certainly has the RIGHT to exist.
Just like the [Fighting Whities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites), the [Fighting Irish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish), and the [Vikings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Vikings).
Of course, what riles people is that "Redskins" is now perceived as a slur (it hasn't always been looked at as such), and therefore they find the name offensive. Meanwhile, teams like the Florida State Seminoles, Kansas City Chiefs and the Cleveland Indians avoid this controversy because their names are simply descriptors for a group of people, without being seen as a slur against a group of people.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Chicago Coolies perhaps### Assistant: Maybe *all* sports teams ought to have racist names? Just to be fair... |
### Human: CMV: Restricting access to assisted suicide only for persons with physical and/or mental illnesses is philosophically groundless.### Assistant: On mental illness;
Speaking from experience, mental illness can be a very slippery problem to pin down. Depression and anxiety are not "always on", and somebody can go through cycles of relatively calm and stability, and then cycles of heightened distress or mania. During these bad times where the illness is exerting the most influence, sufferers may seek suicide as a way out, which is a very short sighted solution. Opening up assisted suicides to them is not very responsible because it is difficult to pin down whether this is what they "really want" or if this is just the disease talking.### Human: There's an interesting question whether a person in so-called stable phase has more accurate perception of her predicament, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
Nevertheless, when someone's able-minded I believe he should be free to decide whether he wants to endure this mood-sinusoid any further. Now that I think about it, it might be the case that the opposite of what is happening right now in very few countries, like Benelux or Switzerland, is good. Some restrictions may be placed on patients with mental disorders, none at all on the "professional pessimists", who (like me) believe life is not worth living by default.### Assistant: So I re-read your post and realized that I misunderstood what you were arguing.
> that concern for acquiescence is either incoherent
It is incoherent. You appear to have constructed your position as such:
>I honestly can't see any reason as to why someone perfectly healthy should not be able to acquire a quick, painless and foolproof method of curtailing his own imposition. Cause that's what life ultimately is - a burden. Enslavement. Anything but a gift.
Essentially you are arguing that life is an unfair burden and as such, individuals should be granted the right to "opt out" at any given moment.
Where I disagree with this view is how you have juxtaposed death against life. In your view as stated, life is a burden, a struggle, etc. But then you make the leap to assuming that if life is a burden, then death must be equivalent to being freed of said burden. I strongly disagree with this assumption because it is not really backed by any strong reasoning. It does not follow that if life is struggle, death is release or freedom.
(note: from here onwards, this reply will be heavily influenced by the writing of Martin Heidegger, a 20th c philosopher who looked at death as an ontological pre-condition rather than an event or state of being).
For a human conscious, what is life? On one hand, life is a biological state of being; you have a body, a brain, organs, cells etc. Their existence, in the physical world, is life and serves as a the housing unit/generator/home for the human consciousness. Life, in this sense, I will refer to as 'spatial life" going forward (as this feature of human existence exists in 3d space, and its continued existence in this space is necessary for consciousness).
On the other hand, life, for a human, goes beyond the physical body in the form of a consciousness. The consciousness is a consistent, self-aware arrangement of thoughts, deriving from brain chemistry but quickly superseding it; while the brain (and body) may lose or gain cells, the consciousness stays intact; your consciousness now is the same one you had at 10 years old, the only difference being that you have more information at your disposal today than you did back then. As such, human life exists not just spatially but also in time; "you" stretch backwards through time towards your birth, and you are also projected forward into an unknown future (I will refer to this as Life from here).
Now what separates humans from other animals is the feature known as Life; the fact that our existence stretches backwards through time; we not only exist spatially, but also have memories, can learn, have ambitions, etc; all things that make a human. Your question of "should I kill myself" is not possible without recognizing you exist in time; you see that life has been hard (looking backwards at previous iterations of your spatial self), you see that death is a possibility in the future (looking forward and making assumptions about what can happen to you) and you see that you have the capacity to make decisions now that will achieve certain outcomes. More than spatial life, Life is the defining feature of humanity and serves as the basis of cognition.
However, this experience also makes human consciousness a ship in a bottle to a degree; our entire perception of the outside world is entirely informed by our previous experiences, current ones, and ambitions; that is to say, Life is not so much an individual human in a moment, but rather a continuous experience of an external universe, bookended by two events; birth at the start, and death at the end.
So with the above in mind then, what is life? Life, is neither a burden nor a blessing; rather it is *everything*, your entire existence, understanding of reality, etc is contained within your lived experience as a being in time. Death is not a relief, or the end of struggle, because death does not give you anything. Death does not end struggle or give you freedom, because both struggle and freedom are two potential experiences contained within Life. Death is more accurately described as an event horizon, after which not only do you lose the universe, but literally all capacity to have any kind of experience is lost.
It is meaningless to assert death as a release from life, because when you die, you are lost as well; it is not release because there is nothing there to experience it; it is the end of the time dimension necessary for any cognition at all. Death is neither good nor bad. It is *nothing*.
It is pointless to want to die because you are not doing yourself any favours. No matter how bad life is, death represents the elimination of all choices, not an out from a bad situation### Human: To put this point in a much less wordy manner:
Death does not give you freedom or peace because you will not exist to experience freedom or peace.
On this point I agree.
However you've also added:
Death does not give you an end to struggle or pain as you will not exist to experience the end of struggle or pain.
On this point I totally disagree. The whole point of it being an end is that it does not continue. You don't need to exist to *stop* *experiencing* pain, struggle or anything else.### Assistant: I stand by my point.
In order for a struggle or pain to end, it needs three things: a subject, pain occurring to the subject up to and including the present moment, and the future possibility of the subject no longer experiencing pain. All three of these factors are a direct extension of the Life idea I laid out above; that humans exist both as a present being, a past lived experience, and a projection onto the future.
If a subject is in pain and the pain stops, both of those experiences exist within the temporal world and as such, are still contained in life. If you are stopping the pain through death, you lose your subject, and as such, both the experience and potential lack of experience are also lost because there is no subject; to say the pain has "stopped" is completely irrelevant because *time itself*, from the subject's point of view, also ceases to exist and as such so does the universe, all experience, and even the subject itself.
The pain has not stopped. The pain still is there; what has stopped is the *subject existing at all*. Death does not stop pain; rather it simply functions as a bookend on the experience (or lack of experience) the subject has. Killing the self solves nothing |
### Human: CMV: 51 "New" Gender Options are Over-the-Top and Useless.### Assistant: > If the definition of "cis" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they just be called women and men?
Because the terms "woman" and "man" got overloaded. The word "woman" can refer to either a "trans-woman" (a person who was male at birth but has reassigned to female) or a "cis-woman" (a person who was and still is female). You can be annoyed about it, but "cis" definitely has a meaning.
Depending on context, its probably safe to assume that when someone says "woman" what they mean is "cis-woman", but that doesn't mean there is no ambiguity.### Human: ~~Can I put half of a delta for this comment? Hehe.~~ ∆
I see where you're coming from, but if someone is a trans-woman (which I assume means *male-to-female*) then why would it matter if you're saying "woman" anyway? If they're MtF, then wouldn't they want to be called a woman regardless?### Assistant: Because using cis- and trans- is an easy yet polite way to differentiate between the two groups of women when you need to. For example, I can say "Studies have shown trans-women are 30% more likely to eat ice cream than cis-women" vs. the more awkward "Studies have shown that transgendered women are 30% more likely to eat ice cream than non-transgendered women"### Human: It's also to avoid the opposite of "trans" being "normal."### Assistant: Speaking of that, I need to write a plugin that replaces "cis" with "normal"...### Human: Similar to cloud to butt?### Assistant: Yes! But I plan to incorporate exceptions for chemical terms (cis/trans isomers, etc.). |
### Human: CMV: Falling in love puts our cognitive biases on steroids.### Assistant: You're talking mainly about romantic love. Does your view also apply to the love for my child, or for my parents, or the love for my best friends?### Human: I'm talking mainly about romantic love and would like my views about that in particular changed. The rest of those don't put our cognitive biases on quite the same level of steroids. But I think they're worthy of a separate discussion.### Assistant: Fair enough.
> Love is celebrated as the highest, most noble emotion.
*Love* is, yes, and I think it deserves to be so. However... "romantic love" is different. Romantic love involves things like obsession, jealousy, selfishness, lust, etc. Personally, I wouldn't even refer to it as "love" - I'd call it *infatuation* instead. And infatuation is definitely not the most noble of emotions. (So I agree with you there.)
I'm not religious, but I like the following quote:
> Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I think this definition is rather quite noble... and it's the definition that most people refer to when talking about love in such a context. *Infatuation* is something altogether different.### Human: Good response. Unfortunately it doesn't change my views toward the referent here, which you call infatuation and I call love. I also think much of what I describe is applicable to what you call love, which is where infatuation often eventually leads. Love of someone other than your mere friend or family has to start somewhere. I want to feel good about all of the above. Infatuation makes me feel very good. Falling for someone makes me feel very good and I want to believe it's an inherently good state of the human mind.### Assistant: Unfortunately you'll need someone else to convince you of that - since I actually believe infatuation can be quite evil. It leads to things like murders, violent abuse, jealousy, and manipulation, isolation, and the abandonment of important things (like careers, dependants, and future investments like school, etc) and a whole bunch of other "bad" things.
That said... some people are more than capable of being infatuated, and still being in control of themselves, without it leading to negative actions. But many do find it hard, and struggle with it. I think it's a valuable life experience, and the positives are very strong (it makes you feel very good), but I think that idolizing it is a bit of a stretch. It's not really *that* great of thing if you look at it from a big picture perspective, and can lead to harm for both persons involved.
It does certainly serve a purpose from an evolutionary perspective... so it's understandable why it's here and why it exists in humans. But that's a very different discussion. |
### Human: [Mod Post] Can anybody help write DeltaBot's code?### Assistant: Not sure about starting from scratch, especially since there doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason to do so.
I'm also not sure about the current code style which consists of zero comments (an easy thing that you can implement when rewriting a codebase); in all 700+ lines there are 8 comments. Then it has the monolithic functions that just kill readability. Hell, the checking for delta function is over 200 lines long! A function should do one thing. One task. It massively improves testing and massively improves readability.
Both of those makes debugging horrifically painful for people new to the project. Hell, if you took a months break from this and came back you'd probably have no idea what's going on in it. I might try to have a glance, but it's unlikely. It's just too much of a pain to work with.
-------
On a side note: While you can use "const" with an array, it's a little weird when you start modifying the variables within it. Not technically wrong, just semantically strange.
And I agree with /u/halfcamelhalfman. You need to have a very good reason to re-write code that works and there aren't many valid reasons, **especially** when it's a new person working on it.### Human: Hey there, thanks for taking the time to take a look at the code.
The main purpose of DB3 was to create a stable bot that wouldn't crash. It started off very simple, but unforeseen problems and bugs would pop up, which caused me to write a lot of redundancy into the code and made the code more complex. The MVP style of the project, unfortunately, mean there are very little comments, but that has allowed me to work very fast. I've spent a total of about 2-3 full time weeks on DB3.
The codebase is fairly small and written in a functional manner. Each function does in fact, do one task, so it's pretty easy to extend/modify code, even though it doesn't look like it. Most of these lines are just declared variables.
"Const" in JS doesn't mean the variable is immutable, it just means that variable must point to the same item in memory, so you can mutate objects and arrays fine, just any other primitive value would change.
Like /u/Snorrrlax mentioned, any help is much appreciated. As a note to anyone who would like to contribute, feel free to open up an issue on GitHub asking about any part of the code and exactly what it does.### Assistant: You should get into the habit of commenting almost everything. It's good practice in general, and once you're used to it there's no slowdown.
[Take getNewComments()](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/blob/master/server.js#L62). Ok... you get some comments from the last parsed comment ID, that's reasonable. Then you get the .... what? ... Next lastParsedComment from a list? While a length is false (one of my pet peeves, use != or > 0) But these override the response? Now from experience I know this could be a deleted comment issue thing, but I really don't know. I'm still not 100% sure, that's my guess based on working on this stuff before (which btw, is one of the reasons to not rewrite code). 76 & 77 can be done in one line btw, just noticed. Then finally you push in the top 4 names? I think? I have no real idea what lodash _.get does. So was that whole thing trying again and again until it failed just incase it was deleted? Because all you get out of these 5 reddit requests (10 seconds of wait) is `lastParsedCommentID` (and backups). If that's a thing then this should be a function of its own. You're finding the last valid comment ID based off a given ID.
Then you have a very similar situation, but now you're looking at comments before the last point. You have [`query = { before: lastParsedCommentID}`](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/blob/master/server.js#L95) after you'd just done an "if" showing that it doesn't exist or is 0. Potential bug?
Line 116 is unnecessary btw.
Line 104 is potentially a double query depending what happened before, which is weird.
And then we're done. I think at minimum this makes 7 queries to get the latest comment every time. I could be wrong.
If I'm wrong then it's because of lack of comments and should show how hard it is to tell what's happening. It's even more important if you use recursion (which you probably shouldn't on a flat structure, but there's no real harm). That was **hard** for me to parse, and it's a major part of the program. That recursion also makes it harder to limit memory (which I've read is a problem).
I wouldn't even care if you wrote it just for yourself. But if you want the community to help the code must be documented, otherwise people won't even jump in to look around.
-------
As for, in general, functional separation, you really want to try to separate reddit queries from any manipulation (looking at the wiki section).
When I said 1 function I was thinking small. "CheckIfUserIsBot" would be one. "CheckIfUserIsMod" is another. This makes them testable individually, which is so useful. And it makes things infinitely clearer.
-----
Finally, why don't use the API for GET requests? I'm also a little worried about the lack of rate limiting, which could get the bot banned if someone goes a bit weird. I might just be missing it though.
--------
This may seem a little harsh but this is a community project now. If you want people to help it has to be written in a certain way. Just from how harsh this is to jump into I doubt many people will help all that much. It requires too much "insider knowledge" to actually work on.
I don't doubt you've done some good work, and got a lot down. It's just not done in a very "community friendly" way. If I get time I may look at it actually pushing in code. We'll see.### Human: Hey there, let me try my best to explain parts of it to you here. Hopefully, you or I or someone else will be able to submit a PR to add some comments.
The "lastParsedComment" list handles errors in state. This can be due to crashes or that a comment gets deleted. When a comment gets deleted, the "lastParsedComment" is not valid anymore and it would go into an infinite loop. This is why we need to keep an array of the last number of comments, so if one doesn't work, it will go to the next. This is lines 66-93.
Starting at line 95, the before query is actually getting the new comments. Everything before it is unrelated.
Yes, line 116 is unnecessary, and a PR to remove it would be great.
Line 104 is a different query because in the line before, query is set.
Like I mentioned above, and you seem to agree here, there are a lack of comments. It's kind of a circle. If I want the community to help, I'll need to properly document everything and write everything clearer, but if I had the time to do that, I wouldn't need help from the community in the first place.
Regarding separating Reddit queries and manipulation, there is a Reddit API Drivers file, actually. From testing on the production code, there are times when you're required/it's better to not use the Reddit API. An example is getting the Wiki content. The Reddit API to grab wiki data doesn't give us information in a way that the bot needs to parse it.
There actually is rate limiting in the separate file.
If you're coming from Python, a lot of this might look too complex because you're use to using PRAW, which abstracts your code from the Reddit API. In Node, there is no good PRAW alternative, so instead of calling "getNewComments" in Python, I had to write it.
You may think that you're being harsh, but I believe you have great points. I'd love to take our discussion from words to actual code. I think with the time we both had to write these out, we could have knocked out an issue on GitHub.
Although with everything you've said, nothing changes the fact that:
* I don't have time to write everything
* I don't have time to refactor things to be clearer
* I don't have time to comment everything
This post was a cry for help. There's no point to rub in the things that are already known.### Assistant: Eh. I've seen plenty worse code than this. Won't claim it's perfect, but the method sizes etc don't scare me off. If anything, the impedances for me are code style (brackets not required, no semicolons, objects not spread onto multiple lines) and heavy use of es6 features (async/await especially, fetch api polyfill) - both not what I've used at work. A few hours of lightly furrowed brows and it's just fine.
EDIT: if I took two steps towards raw quality, it wouldn't be splitting methods up anyway. Hooking up eslint to actually run via "npm run test" and a unit test harness would be my choices. |
### Human: I don't think that it is more wrong for a man to hit a woman than to hit another man. CMV### Assistant: I think the problem lies in the implied biological differences between men and women. In truth, men are generally stronger than women. Specific cases aside, the issue is not necessarily male vs female, but rather strong vs weak. If this is the case, then we can apply this for another perspective: an adult hitting a child. Would it be presumably right that an adult can hit a child if the child provokes them (no relation between them implied)?
For both cases, regardless of gender, the provoked party should give an appropriate response. If the provoked party is significantly stronger, it would generally not be accepted to have an overpowered response. However, if such a response is justified (e.g. life threat), then I do not see a reason to not take action. It ends up being a matter of a case-by-case basis.
**Edit**
*In reply to OP's first edit:*
>What's the difference between a man hitting a weaker woman and a man hitting a weaker man?
The weaker man would presumably be stronger than the weaker woman. If both of these parties are the same, except for in strength, then the answer is "none".
*In reply to OP's second edit:* I am not sure what your question is. In all of the mentioned aspects (assuming the subject in them is also men vs women), there can be biological differences as well. Men and women are not biologically equal, it would not be right to ignore these differences. However, all human beings should inheritably have the same rights regardless of these differences. In the case of a man hitting a woman, it is strength vs weakness. In the terms of emotions, and in perception of space, it would be a different CMV as you stated. So again, what exactly is your question/view?### Human: I don't believe the child analogy works so well, because a child can be excused from provocative behaviour by their age. Obviously there are the shitty kids everyone hates, but you get the idea - they're young, they can't be expected to be exceptionally mature, and even if they're being a little shit an adult should be expected to restrain themself from being physical, even a teenager (excepting self defense of course). Making the child analogy implies that a man shouldn't hit a woman who is provoking him only because he is the superior in that situation and should know better (that being the reason people shouldn't hit children who are provoking them).### Assistant: > Making the child analogy implies that a man shouldn't hit a woman who is provoking him only because he is the superior in that situation and should know better
Not at all. Reversing the scenario, if the man is provoking the woman it is still wrong for the woman to attack the man, even if the man is more powerful.
The difference is that, in general, a woman cannot inflict as much damage as the man, and a man would generally be more able to defend himself and limit the damage inflicted. That doesn't make it ok though. It's just *worse* if a man attacks a woman because he can cause more damage and the woman cannot defend herself as well.
So the fact that a child's violence can be "excused" more easily doesn't really matter for this comparison. The analogy is only addressing comparative differences in strength and ability to inflict damage vs ability to defend oneself.### Human: Well of course it's still wrong for the woman to attack the provoking man, but in your analogy (woman~child) it could be excused because a child probably isn't mature enough to "know better".
I'm just gonna rephrase my point, I feel like we're not quite on the same parallel: I meant that when you use a man and a child for the analogy instead of, say, a strong man and n weak man (who are at the same mental level) it adds an extra layer of possible meaning. I don't think using a child is a good comparison because the differences between children and adults are not just physical; there's mental capacity and decision-making ability etc etc, whereas (for the purposes of the situation at hand, the physical confrontation) the differences in men and women are just physical. Comparing a woman to a kid, which has those other connotations, is just asking for offence and misinterpretation as far as I read it. Maybe that comes across oversensitive but it seems poorly chosen to me at least.### Assistant: Yeah, I agree with you. Using a strong man and a weaker man for the analogy leaves out all the complicating factors that using a child brings. It does make a better example when using two men on equal mental levels.
It does not come across as oversensitive (to me at least), it comes across as fair and well thought out. |
### Human: I think a woman touching a guy's butt/chest is as inappropriate as it'd be vice versa. CMV.### Assistant: It is just as inappropriate, and I can't think of a single instance where anyone I know has done this. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen - i'm sure it does - just as it happens with men doing that to women.
If this was a workplace incident, you could certainly sue for sexual harassment. It probably wouldn't get anywhere - most sexual harassment suits don't (for both genders). Outside of workplace, or power imbalances, I don't think you have grounds to sue, but it is still assault, and well within your rights to tell someone to back the hell off. I can't imagine friends who would laugh at you if you said that, but I'm not a guy, so maybe I don't get it.
Edit: For clarification, I think that the suit for sexual harassment has equal chances in a court as woman's similar suit would. Unfortunately none of these get very far. Sexual harassment is generally a civil case, so you would be dependent upon a jury, and it often gets into a case of he-said/she-said. Actual assault (unwanted touching) should be followed through the same for men and women, and a police officer could be found at fault if they did not follow the law.
I was also wondering if you have an example of how people describing a woman who gropes men as "independent and flirty"? Is this just the opinion of your circle of friends, or have you seen this play out on a larger scale?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry kanikkers, your post has been removed:
> Comment Rule 2\. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2)
If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+2+Post+Appeal&message=kanikkers+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1voenh/i_think_a_woman_touching_a_guys_buttchest_is_as/ceuazqn\))### Human: Sorry, didn't check the rules. My apologies.### Assistant: You need to read the rules to know not to be a dick?### Human: Did you really jump into a thread you weren't previously involved in to scorn someone who has already had their post deleted? In reply to an apology? Just to call them a dick? That's bully behavior. |
### Human: CMV: If everybody in New York obeyed all traffic and parking rules it would be a disaster for the city### Assistant: Can you expand on how blocking the box allows traffic to flow better?
Let's say you were a genius and you always knew whether you would end up in the intersection when the lights change or not, so you could always pull out, but never get stuck in the intersection.
What does it get you (or traffic in general)? Everyone gets to pull up a little further so there ends up being a little extra space at the end of the line? (Which might already be empty anyways)
But the problem is, you aren't perfect. It's a very low reward, high risk play.
A single person blocking the box for a light cycle (or even 10 or 15 seconds) outweighs the good of like 100 people who pull it off correctly.### Human: Someone being willing to block the box a little bit, can ensure that neither the forward street or the turning street gets stuck never going. As I've said elsewhere, you can block the box in a way that allows traffic move behind you, but ensures that you get a turn to advance, rather than the other street only being able to.### Assistant: I've read all your comments and I'm still not clear what exactly you're talking about or the benefits of it.
How does me eeking out into the crosswalk, but not blocking the cross traffic, keep things moving better? Seems like you're only allowing folks to scoot up a few feet, but now you've got pedestrians weaving through cars which will mess up the turning lanes as they won't be sure if a pedestrian will hop out from behind a car or potentially be forced into the intersection. Rare situation, but I saw this the other day (DC) where this kind of action left a motorized wheelchair stranded in the street. He couldn't weave behind because he was too big, but he also couldn't go in front or he would have gotten nailed from behind by the cars travelling the same direction as him.### Human: I'm saying that there will be enough room for you to cross the intersection, but not enough room to get the rear of your car out of the far crosswalk. This may be the only way you will be able to get across the intersection but having the rear of your car not completely through is illegal and ticketable. Does that explain it better?### Assistant: Which results in the issues of pedestrians being forced to weave cars which hurts the turning lanes as they can't see as well. Not to mention making pedestrians take longer to cross as they have to weave.
Furthermore, you could delay the moving up as now you have a pedestrian in front of you when space clears up.
At best, you're just shifting what is a problem. At worst, you get stuck and create a whole another mess.### Human: I'm not really trying to defend blocking the box as a good thing. I completely acknowledge that the reality we have now sucks. Blocking the box isn't good but at least you get to move eventually. In a situation where no one blocked the box, even a little bit, a large amount of the vehicles would never get to move. It's hard enough of you have a small car. It would be impossible with a box truck.### Assistant: >I'm not really trying to defend blocking the box as a good thing.
Yes you are...
>In a situation where no one blocked the box, even a little bit, a large amount of the vehicles would never get to move
Umm.. How exactly? We're at a stop light and no one blocks the box, you're telling me that everyone is just going to be sitting there? The traffic doesn't move in front of you? That's nonsensical. At best it gets 1 person slightly farther ahead per light cycle, but more often than not you're going to be stranded and cause some gridlock. |
### Human: CMV: The words "misogynist" and "sexist are overused to the point that real sexism is taken less seriously### Assistant: When's the last time someone brought up the fact that Chuck Todd isn't very attractive in an attempt to debase his position or his journalism? Never, right? Because the way Chuck Todd looks isn't relevant to his job! But when a woman is a professional of any sort, comments on her appearance are suddenly acceptable, and being called ugly means that their work is no longer important, she's ugly so now everything she has to say is meaningless. That's misogyny. Because according to Donald Trump, if a woman isn't sufficiently worth having sex with, she's lost all of her value as a human being.
When a man is called ugly, he's ugly. When a woman is called ugly, she's no longer human.### Human: >When a man is called ugly, he's ugly. When a woman is called ugly, she's no longer human.
I don't think anyone believes that makes her any less human. The sexes carry different weights. Women are more concerned about looks because that's generally what's made them more marketable for potential mates - it's nature. Men's marketable traits are more along the lines of security and protection, so a blow to their looks doesn't really affect them the same way.### Assistant: > Women are more concerned about looks because that's generally what's made them more marketable for potential mates - it's nature.
Oh man, there's a lot to unpack in your reply. I might believe that it's "nature" if it weren't for the thousands of years of gendered socialization that tells men and women alike that the only value women have is how attractive they are.
> Men's marketable traits are more along the lines of security and protection
More like for most of human history, women were restricted from owning property and gaining employment, keeping them reliant on the men in their lives. That doesn't mean that it's some sort of biological nature of humanity that even in the 21st century, men often take on the breadwinner role while women are protected by them.### Human: You can yell "society this and that" all day but the fact remains that men and women market themselves to one another differently and that's why beauty is more of an emotional trigger for women.### Assistant: Alright, you're welcome to believe that. I'm clearly not going to change your mind. Enjoy your evening!### Human: I'm not contesting whether it's nature or "society" or what, but the fact remains that the number one attractant for a woman is her looks and a number one attractant for a man is his ability to provide stability. That is just the truth.### Assistant: Well, at least give me a source for a claim like that.### Human: You need a source? What world do you live in?### Assistant: You have to prove claims you make, you don't just get to know what is right and wrong.### Human: Did you ever date or be around women generally at all? I mean I'm not sure what proof I'm supposed to provide of the fact that women market themselves sexually based on looks. It just is what it is. If you don't believe that, or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, then so be it. This dismissal of such a common and obvious fact is ridiculous.### Assistant: > This dismissal of such a common and obvious fact is ridiculous.
I'll stop dismissing it once you show me a study that says it's true.
> of the fact that women market themselves sexually based on looks. It just is what it is.
Nah, that's not what I'm challenging. I'm challenging your idea that men are interested in women's looks and women are interested in men's security/protection. If this is truly some widespread social phenomenon, there's gotta be some science backing it up, wouldn't you say?### Human: You need a study to tell you that women market themselves based on their appearance?
Yeah, it's called life. What world do you live in, seriously? Where do you come from?### Assistant: > You need a study to tell you that women market themselves based on their appearance?
Apparently you didn't read my last comment. I'm challenging your assertion that the number one attractant for men is looks, AND the number one attractant for women is social status/wealth.
> What world do you live in, seriously?
The two of us probably are very different people, with different lives and experiences. Something that you see as an obvious fact of life isn't apparent to me, so that's why we rely on science. To determine what is objectively true.### Human: >social status/wealth
I said **security**. There's a huge difference.
Well obviously I don't have that study but my citation is the clear and obvious order of nature. So clearly that isn't good enough for you, what would you contest is the actual attractant of a woman and a man?
Then with your answer, why don't you give me a better reason why women are more affected by 'beauty standards' than men are.### Assistant: > the clear and obvious order of nature. So clearly that isn't good enough for you
Yep, still not believing anything is the order of nature until I see some science backing it up. LOL no, actually, pseudoscientific gendered stereotypes aren't "good enough" for me. Sorry for being such an uppity woman, that I actually demand fact over fiction.
> what would you contest is the actual attractant of a woman and a man?
Attraction is based on many factors for both genders. Physical/sexual attraction, similar goals/outlooks on life, religion, interests, hobbies, social status, political views, sense of humor... everyone has different things they want in a partner. Not necessarily tied to their gender.
> women are more affected by 'beauty standards' than men are.
No need to put beauty standards in scare quotes. Women aren't necessarily affected more psychologically by beauty standards than men are (although considering that women make up [91% of plastic surgery procedures](https://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/ASAPS-Stats2016.pdf), there's decent evidence that they are) but at the end of the day, only women need to wear makeup to be considered "professional-looking". Men and women are both expected to be attractive and rewarded for doing so but men don't have to paint their face to be rewarded.### Human: You're not speaking of attraction, you're talking about the things people find in common with one another after the initial stage of attraction. Men are primarily initially attracted to physical appearance. Women primarily seek security and stability. Sure, appearance is a factor, but generally far less than for men. Even your own statistic you provided shows that women have a higher concern for meeting these fictitious beauty standards, why do you think that is?
No woman ever has been forced to wear makeup to look "professional". There are literally no laws, ordinances, or rules in place for that in the professional world - it's discriminatory. It just doesn't exist. I have two superiors at work who are female, neither wear makeup most of the time, if at all that I've noticed. It's not a prerequisite.### Assistant: >Men are primarily initially attracted to physical appearance. Women primarily seek security and stability.
Apparently you can have zero evidence for a claim but if you just keep on repeating it, it'll
become true.
> No woman ever has been forced to wear makeup to look "professional".
[Actually,](http://motto.time.com/4503598/workplace-sexism-study-heels-makeup-women/) [you're](https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/women-are-told-by-their-bosses-to-wear-more-make-up-and-put-on-h/amp/) [entirely](http://www.businessinsider.com/wearing-makeup-makes-women-more-likely-to-succeed-2015-8) [wrong.](http://www.newsweek.com/high-heels-and-workplace-460312) [Here are](http://www.businessinsider.com/a-harrods-employee-claims-she-was-fired-for-not-wearing-makeup-2011-7) [some](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-employer-require-female-employees-wear-makeup-63185.html) [sources.](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women-appear-more-competent-study.html)
In many fields it's perfectly legal to require makeup as part of the dress code for women, and even if it's not legally required, not wearing makeup still makes women appear less competent, resulting in her getting paid less. Do you truly believe that discrimination doesn't exist anymore? I'm glad your workplace is fairly egalitarian, but it's not the case everywhere, and an anecdotal piece of evidence about a strange on Reddit having two bare-faced female bosses holds up less than actual studies.### Human: The evidence is all around you sweetheart - it's called the real world. Men are generally attracted to physically fit and attractive women. Sorry that reality displeases you.
Your "citation" is about a single instance in *London* and it carried one anecdote about a court case of a disabled person working for Abercrombie who was discriminated against - nothing about makeup.
So if anecdotes are evidence to you, I'll provide you with an anecdote. I am a man. I, as well as every other man I've ever known, prefer attractive women to uggos or butterfaces. They actually detract us, which is why you see so few men leaping at the feet of most feminists.### Assistant: Actually they linked to several different examples of dress codes for women being sexist.### Human: Well prior to the edit, there was one citation to which I responded |
### Human: CMV: There is no logical reasoning for humans having more of a right to live than animals.### Assistant: Your argument is fundamentally flawed due to assuming ANYTHING has objective value. Value is only bestowed by thinking agents. So if you think objectively, nothing has any value. If you think subjectively (as everyone does), we have value because we value ourselves and each other, for a huge variety of reasons.### Human: What about the value it adds to the system it participates in, it's ecosystem? In this case, whatever organism has a greater contribution to the equilibrium would have greater value. This would be independent of whatever thoughts you or I had on the matter.### Assistant: That's using the word value in a completely different way.### Human: I don't believe so. How would you say these differ in intent?### Assistant: The first use was the value we bestow upon things, relative to us.
The second use was assuming that someone values the ecosystem's equilibrium. And guess what? That's only relevant if you mean the value WE assign to the ecosystem, and how it functions relative to that. And if that's what you meant, then it was a redundant point, because I already said that value exists only from the perspective of the thinking agent valuing something.### Human: You said the OPs argument was flawed because he was assuming something had objective value. Objective value is an intrinsic quality, separate from what value we believe it has.
The value an organism contributes to an ecosystem is independent to our valuing of it. If an ant colony adds value to an ecosystem, and humans subtract value; the only way we have more of a right to live is because we are human-centrist in our beliefs. Human-centrism is irrational because it relies on the emotional attachment to our own species.### Assistant: And that's precisely why I said you were using it in two different manners, because you are.
When you say an ant adds value to an ecosystem, you're acting as if there's some intrinsic value to the ecosystem, when this is simply not the case. Absent any minds, the ecosystem has no value. |
### Human: CMV: People should be kept anonymous until found guilty.### Assistant: Some interesting ideas there but a couple clarifications. Would you intend to stop citizens who necessarily know the identify of the accused, such as the victim, from identifying them publicly? If so how and how would this be enforced?### Human: I'd think so, in order to protect the privacy of all involved. The victim would be kept anonymous as well, and there'd be some sort of overarching gag order unless someone waived their anonymity. A victim could waive their anonymity and say that they're involved in a trial, but couldn't identify the defendant unless they also waived their anonymity. If privacy is broken when someone's found innocent, we already have libel and slander laws involved to handle disputes such as that.### Assistant: So by virtue of being a crime victim, my right to freedom of speech is drastically curtailed?
Libel and slander both require that the statements be false - but you're preventing crime victims from making what they believe to be true statements about the defendant.### Human: You raise a good point. The victim's right to speech must be maintained. I think allowing the victim to discuss it should be allowed while requiring any news outlets to use pseudonyms while talking about the case to protect everyone's privacy. Regardless, ∆ on that, you're right on how that would violate the victim's rights.### Assistant: Where does social media fit in? If I claim someone committed a crime against me, can I then freely go out and smear them on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?### Human: >Where does social media fit in? If I claim someone committed a crime against me, can I then freely go out and smear them on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?
Aka what happened to James Deen |
### Human: CMV: The idea of not labeling a relationship(or anything else) is counterproductive to intention of language and is an inherently juvenile concept.### Assistant: Perhaps they don't label it because existing labels don't adequately describe the situation? If you label it and then have to explain how the label isn't accurate, it's also counterproductive and can result in misunderstandings.
> I was always introduced as a friend and not SO/BF, which was alienating and confusing. It makes you feel alone, even though the person next to you seems care on some fundamental level like a kid likes a roley polely.
Sounds like you wanted a label that she did not. This wasn't caused by the lack of a label; this was caused by the lack of a strong enough relationship to merit a label.### Human: Then you change the label. If milk becomes cottage cheese in the fridge, label it as cottage cheese and move on. Saying that the milk needs to remained unlabeled, because it might become cottage cheese or butter later on is simply annoying, as the current item is unnamed due to its volatility in nature.
It takes seconds to explain what something is versus leaving it to the wind and leaving the blanks to be unanswered. There is a definite point to language and that is communication. Not adding a label fundamentally defeats this core concept.
We agreed that we were an item of somesort.. kinda... not really. Then it could have been called dating.### Assistant: > We agreed that we were an item of somesort.. kinda... not really. Then it could have been called dating.
It seems like there was a label, and that label was "friends". The true description would have been friends who occasionally go on dates but aren't committed or exclusive. Labeling it as "dating" implies a more serious relationship than it was. It also wasn't "friends with benefits", since there were some romantic feelings.### Human: It was serious, but this is not the direct topic. We need to digress.### Assistant: To digress is to get off topic. I think you meant to say "We digress".### Human: Yes, thank you for correcting me. |
### Human: CMV: I believe that companies and universities should not be allowed to ask for race or gender in applications### Assistant: I will focus exclusively on private educational institutions, because anything dealing with public schools means government means more complicated.
Ivy League schools have a duty to every student that matriculates there to provide them with an education they believe fitting of their institution. Ivy League schools want diversity for two reasons: it pushes their pool of alumni into many communities and industries, and it better prepares students to live in a globalized world. As the world continues to interconnect, those people who have lived, interacted with and collaborated with others from diverse backgrounds are better prepared to represent the university as an alumnus and better prepared as an individual to succeed in the workplace.
A recent [Reply All](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/52-raising-the-bar/) episode discussed the value of diverse backgrounds in the workplace. What the Ivy League is doing (and what some tech companies are trying to do) is recognize that traditional metrics of what constitutes "most qualified" don't necessary yield the strongest results. They don't want to have an exclusively wealthy, suburban student body comprised mostly of White and Asian-American students. That doesn't serve the institution's interest, and it doesn't serve the students' interest.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I think all students admitted to Ivy League schools have excellent qualifications. Scoring 36 on your ACT doesn't necessarily make you more qualified than someone who scored 35. Realistically, both of those students could succeed in an Ivy League school.
I don't have data for this so it's more of a speculation than a firm argument, but what if Harvard is simply selecting for multiple interests? What if they target, say, 30% of their freshmen class to be math and science majors. After they fill those slots, they look for future writers, philosophers, economists, and political scientists? Comparing the math SAT score of someone who will major in performance art to a future engineer isn't useful.
The benefits of diversity are not intangible. There are a lot of studies showing that informational diversity is always a positive contributor to teams. There's a lot of mixed results when it comes to social or other forms of diversity.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >You could also say that two students of the same ethnic group could have very varied worldviews and different capacities to inspire a diverse way of thinking.
Isn't that why there are application essays and teacher recommendations? I think we can both agree that the SAT isn't equipped to differentiate diverse ways of thinking or varied worldviews. I think diversity is important, especially when Ivy League schools get so many elite applications they can select for basically whatever criteria they want and still have a well qualified freshman class.### Human: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV: Donald Trump saying that pregnancy is an inconvenience to businesses is not only fine, but true.### Assistant: > pregnancy is an inconvenience to a business, and there was nothing wrong with Donald pointing that out
Employees taking time off to attend their parents' funerals is also an inconvenience to a business, but it certainly wouldn't be acceptable for a politician to point that out.
There is a long and storied history of employers treating female employees worse because they might get pregnant. It has taken decades to get to our point in US history where women have maternity leave rights, and even now employers aren't required to pay them during that time.
For women to truly have a fair economy to participate in, men and women should be treated equally during hiring, promotion, and other events during their career. Women *and* men should (and at present, do) have access to maternity/paternity leave, although pay during those leaves of absence is optional.
Donald pointing out that "pregnancy is an inconvenience to a business" is an odd thing for him to point out. What does he want to do about it? Allow employers to discriminate based on gender? Repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act (guarantees up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for childbirth)?
This is known as "dog whistling". Donald didn't explicitly *say* he wanted businesses to be able to discriminate based on gender or repeal the FMLA, but this comment certainly panders to the crowd that would like those things. Donald seems to be taking a position contrary to [Hillary](http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Families_+_Children): "US needs paid family leave, to join rest of the world." This is a sentiment that I, and many liberals, agree with.
In case you aren't aware, many perceive that there is still [pregnancy discrimination in the US workplace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_discrimination#United_States).
edited a minor grammer/wording mistake### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I was looking at this quote from one of the [US Primary Debates in Oct 2015](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm):
> CLINTON: I want to do more to help us balance family and work. I believe in equal pay for equal work for women, but I also believe it's about time we had paid family leave for American families and join the rest of the world.
> Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015
She is also listing this as a plank of her political platform.
[Direct bullet list from her website](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/paid-leave/)
> As president, Hillary will:
> * Guarantee up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member, and up to 12 weeks of medical leave to recover from a serious illness or injury of their own.
* Ensure hardworking Americans get at least two-thirds of their current wages, up to a ceiling, while on leave.
* Impose no additional costs on businesses, including small businesses.
* Fund paid leave by making the wealthy pay their fair share—not by increasing taxes on working families. Hillary will pay for her paid leave plan with tax reforms that will ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.
I can see how you might be confused that this quote came from earlier as she has been for this issue for decades. I'm sure she has provided similar quotes many times before. ;)### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > I was referring to Donald's quote, obviously.
Aha, I missed that. I figured OP had a more recent and direct quote from Donald.
> the quote is taken highly out of context. the interview isn't even about him, it's about a female employee of his. it's just an offhand comment, he wasn't trying to make it into some huge political statement and he certainly didn't have an agenda.
I see. I definitely feel OP's initial premise made Donald sound much worse.
> These issues is frankly, absurd.
Agreed. I was running off OP's premise. My mistake.
It looks like both Donald and Hillary want paid pregnancy leave [(although Donald's plan provides half as much support as Hillary's)](http://fortune.com/2016/09/14/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-maternity-leave/). |
### Human: CMV: Alimony laws in the US are absolutely fucked up.### Assistant: >I can't accept that it's fair because the laws are written gender blindly because it's such a trope in society that an ex-husband loses his assets and you so rarely hear of an ex-wife losing her's. It seems like the system is just brutally rigged.
Alimony *is* gender neutral though, you have to accept that. The laws are not written to benefit women and punish men. When you marry someone who makes less than you, that's the risk you take and should tread carefully.
The fact of the matter is that the wage gap does exist. I know it is explained 92.9-95.2% as a result of choices people make, but the average woman does make less than the average man. What are two choices women often make that leads to lower pay? Less hours/overtime and having a child. The woman is often making choices *with her partner* to create a family. She gives up higher pay/higher earning potential to do that, and that benefits the man as well. The man could also choose to work less hours and be the primary caregiver, we just see that scenario less often.
Are you against alimony in all scenarios? For example, if the husband cheats or abuses his wife and then he files for divorce, do you think she deserves some money then? The divorce was not her choice, nor did she do anything to warrant being mistreated. Imagine the man has a family with this woman and suddenly she is without a home and provider for her children (assuming, of course that she gets custody). Is that "fair"?
Here's another scenario I want you to consider. Say a man and a woman married when they were 21. The man works while the woman attains her Masters degree. Because he is making money, he pays for her tuition and expenses with the understanding that she will contribute once she graduates and gets a job. Then as soon as she graduates, the woman decides to divorce the husband. The man has effectively paid for his wife's education under the assumption that he will later benefit for it. Should he not receive some sort of payment for that?
When you say you never hear about women losing their assets to their ex-husbands, where are you hearing about the opposite? Outside of /r/mensrights, I hear *nothing* about alimony. You probably only hear the very extreme cases, kind of like traffic accidents. Have you heard about a traffic accident in your city today? Probably not. But if you live in a big city, there's a decent chance one has occurred. Do you believe it hasn't simply because you haven't heard it on the news? Unless you are actively looking for this information, I doubt you will come across it during your regular reading.
For the record OP, I think alimony laws should be revisited, but I think it is necessary in many cases (maybe not the amount that is currently paid out, but alas).
Edit: Now one of the arguments against alimony I have heard is that once the marriage ends, one person continues to benefit from the other, while the other person no longer receives something in exchange for that (a caregiver for their child, someone who cooks their meals, someone who cleans, etc.) Let's look at the scenario of a stay-at-home mom vs. working dad since it is the most extreme. To refute this in case it comes up, the reason it is this way is because someone who voluntarily leaves the workforce to look after a family gives up a lot of earning potential. They could be planning to be permanently out of the workforce. Now, say the husband decides he wants a divorce 10 years later. Suddenly the woman is looking for work, has a 10 year gap on her resume, and is probably older (ageism in the workplace can be a problem). She is screwed. There is almost no way she can go back to work at a salary similar to what she was making before she left, especially if she never planned to go back based on the agreement with her husband. In contrast, the man will still know how to cook and how to clean.
Edit 2: OP, would you be ok with something like a progressive tax rate, but applied to alimony? For example, instead of person A receiving 50% of person B's income, would you be ok with a formula like:
50% <50k
30% 50k<75k
15% 75k<100k
10% >100k
So if the person B was making 115k/year, person A would receive
(0.50x50000)+(0.30x25000)+(0.15x25000)+(0.10x15000)=37750. It's less than half, but certainly liveable for a single-person. This way, if someone makes a ton of money, their ex-partner receives part of it, but not a lucrative amount. For those with more average incomes, it's still fair.### Human: Your progressive tax rate is flipped. The percentages should start small and get larger. Something like 10% of the 0-20k bracked 15% of the 20K-40k bracket etc. etc.### Assistant: I disagree. I think that would be a really quick way to be pushed into poverty. Making 40k for two people is decently comfortable. But if you divorce and suddenly only get (0.1x20000)+(0.15x20000)=5000 (as you suggested), you're totally screwed.### Human: > I disagree. I think that would be a really quick way to be pushed into poverty. Making 40k for two people is decently comfortable. But if you divorce and suddenly only get (0.1x20000)+(0.15x20000)=5000 (as you suggested), you're totally screwed.
More screwed than the person who only gets 10k while working for a 20k job? You're NOT working for this money so you can supplement it with a job.### Assistant: >You're NOT working for this money so you can supplement it with a job.
Right, and alimony takes into consideration the recipient's income. |
### Human: CMV: No is obligated to be attracted to anyone, and people should not be chastised for their preferences.### Assistant: You don't have to ask an obese person out or have sex with them, just be respectful. You can still be friends, talk, etc, just don't be a jerk about their weight.
Sometimes, you just need to be tact in life. There's no need to go out of the way to say you aren't attracted to xyz type of person, just keep it to yourself. Some people are very sensitive, and feel the need to gain the acceptance of everyone in every way. All making statements like this does is bother people who are sensitive about their appearance. In life, there's some things you say, and some things it's best to just stay quiet about. There's nothing wrong with not being attracted to certain people, but sometimes you just gotta be politically correct and keep your opinions to yourself.### Human: Agreed. You don't HAVE to do these things, but say the opposite were to occur. Someone you aren't attracted to asks you out. You say no, they ask why. You say you're not attracted to them. If they ask if it's because of trait X,Y or Z, and you say yes, does that make you an asshole?
Not to mention I've seen a lot of stepping on other people the elevate themselves(Real men go for "curvy" girls, real women are "curvy" only real men date Latinas, white girls are basic, etc). If preferences were to dare come up in a public forum, like they often do, you're asking for a whole lot of drama if you exclude anyone a lot of the time.### Assistant: >Agreed. You don't HAVE to do these things, but say the opposite were to occur. Someone you aren't attracted to asks you out. You say no, they ask why. You say you're not attracted to them. If they ask if it's because of trait X,Y or Z, and you say yes, does that make you an asshole?
Part of being tact is coming up with a response that technically isn't a lie, but also doesn't hurt someone's feeings. Try responses like "I have someone else in mind at the moment", or anything that helps you evade the situation without lying or hurting their feelings.
You can choose to just be direct and honest and tell them it's because of a particular trait, it's up to you. But just keep in mind if you aren't tact, you may get backlash depending on the person.### Human: Off topic, but when does someone else's capacity to be offended or hurt become your responsibility? I feel as though as long as someone isn't an outright asshole, if someone else is offended, that's not really their problem. Or is it?### Assistant: Debatable, it depends what your goals are. I'm not just going to lie about my opinion on a controversial issue because it offends people, I will speak my mind.
If I feel like offending someone is important to bettering them as a person, then perhaps I will. For example, I may try to talk someone out of an unhealthy or dangerous habbit, and they may take offense to me telling them what to do.
As for it being my responsibility, I think to a degree, it is. There are consequences for everything. Will what I say kill my friendship with someone? Will what I say be used against me? Will what I say cause someone anxiety or depression? If I can use my intuition to decide what's best for myself and everyone else, then I will.### Human: Thank you for your responses. I think a lot of people end up looking at this as a very black/white issue and you've managed to bring some gray into it, which I appreciate.
!delta### Assistant: One would think that this warrants a delta.### Human: Not sure how to delta on mobile.### Assistant: I would try copy/pasting a delta from another thread maybe?### Human: I figured it out, thank you for the suggestion. |
### Human: I do NOT want to have a wedding, despite my family's (and his family's) wishes. CMV.### Assistant: It sounds like money is the big issue. The answer to that issue is: don't spend money on all the ridiculous crap people think is necessary (expensive dress/clothes, flowers, exotic banquet hall, food, music, etc. etc.). The wedding industry (in America) is out of control overpriced and is way out of affordability range for a lot of young people.
So... skip it. Remember that cheaper doesn't have to mean crappy. Take bbop21's advice and find a free location, ask for friends & family to chip in for supplies and just have a party. Make your own traditions, whatever is meaningful to the two of you and your families. DON'T have a cookie cutter wedding because it doesn't sound like it appeals to you.
Beyond the money issue, you sound reluctant to even have, much less celebrate, a wedding. Honestly it doesn't sound like you guys are ready for "marriage" in all that it entails. What you have is a loving private relationship, but a marriage is really more of a public thing, designed to bring your families together, bring them in to your family circle and most importantly, help raise kids and so forth. A marriage is kind of like a company having an IPO and going public. There's no reason to even do the ceremony if you want to keep your relationship private for now. When you're ready (especially if you're thinking about kids), you can do the public ceremony thing down the road.### Human: > The wedding industry
Ugh.
Just don't do it if you don't want to. Don't use this kind of scare language to denigrate those who provide a service that people want, for whatever reason.### Assistant: A service that people think they want, because it has been relentlessly drilled into everyone's head that a wedding that isn't a [White Wedding](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_wedding), complete with Victorian-era costumes, cake, decorations, music, etc. isn't a "real" wedding.
My problem isn't with the people who actually want to mimic British aristocrats when they get married, it's with all of the other people who believe they *have* to... and the ruinously expensive industry that does everything it can to reinforce that belief. It's a form of mass superstition.### Human: Look, I'm with you on how pointless the whole thing is. You're just putting the blame in the wrong place. Blame the idiots who think it's important, not the people who sell the product.### Assistant: That doesn't make sense to me. Surely the people who publish *Modern Bride* and the tabloids who relentlessly cover celebrity weddings and the caterers who gouge working families for mediocre food and the DeBeers cartel's 70 year old campaign to sell diamond solitaires -- surely the people who profit off the profession and spend millions every year promoting it bear some responsibility for keeping the tradition alive (and ever more expensive)?
Seems like there's blame on more than one side, is what I'm saying.### Human: You've seen all of that propaganda and yet made a conscious decision not to buy into it, haven't you? Are you saying others are too stupid to make the same decision?### Assistant: It's a social mania. Like a superstition. Lots of people buy into it. I don't think they're all stupid, just that they're all superstitious, *except* for the small handful of people who really think it'd be cool to recreate Victorian aristocratic ceremonies circa 1840. Everyone else is going along more or less unthinkingly with a tradition. |
### Human: CMV: I believe that the identity of those accused of rape should be kept as secret as that of the accuser.### Assistant: >however, rape cases seem to be a very specific animal, so perhaps there should be some specific rules for them.
They're not, really. Plenty of other criminal investigations begin with an accusation and reputational losses incurred in the community by virtue of accusation. One of my former co-workers shot someone in self-defense and had to move because of the legal fallout despite validly using self-defense that was upheld in court.
"But rape cases are just he-said-she-said." True of many - if not most - other criminal cases. That's why our rules of evidence put such a strong emphasis on having people testify in court for a jury to observe: we're mostly balancing competing narratives articulated by an accuser and the accused. "He stole my radio!" "No, he let me borrow it!" What do we do here? Put them on a stand, let them talk, and try and present whatever other stuff we might have that makes their story more credible.
We can have physical evidence that bolsters their claim on various elements of a crime but we vary rarely have any kind of smoking gun or evidence that will, by itself, wholly corroborate or negate an entire story. Generally, we poke holes in whatever element(s) we can.
>Small town in middle America was more than willing to condemn a black boy simply because a white girl accused him.
Unfortunately, black people get the short end of the stick in most cases, black men in particular when it comes to being accused of a crime. People make erroneous normative assumptions about black people off the bat regardless of whatever crime they are accused of. Again, it's something negative that permeates the justice system and isn't unique to rape. A black man accused of rape is more likely to be assumed as guilty and a black woman claiming she was a rape victim is less likely to be viewed as a bona fide victim.
>but if we continue down the path of destroying someone's name permanently (or worse) with an accusation supported by limited to no evidence, it will only encourage this behavior of claiming rape as a revenge tactic.
Why assume that rape accusations come with limited or no evidence? *All* accusations are just a claim; the amount of evidence available will vary from case-to-case.
You might have a good point with respect to keeping any accused's identity a secret, but not with respect to limiting it to the accused in a rape case.### Human: but the issue at hand is the accused of rape cases.
you make some fair points, but it has no real baring on this discussion.### Assistant: How does it have *no* bearing when you frame rape as some kind of unique circumstance and the body of my post is trying to illustrate that's not the case?### Human: look at the title.
edit: you didn't even try to address the topic itself.
edit 2: again, not saying you're wrong that we could consider this in a broader context, but that is not the issue at hand. further, similar CMVs (like the ones I mention in the OP) bring forward arguments that it is more important to keep the justice system transparent than it is to protect the reputation of a few accused.
again, that is an entirely different issue. I singled rape cases out as an attempt to separate this argument from what you're talking about.### Assistant: You start out with this point:
> rape cases seem to be a **very specific** animal
And then conclude:
>so perhaps there should be some **specific rules**
One of which is:
>I believe that the identity of those accused of rape should be kept as secret as that of the accuser.
Emphasis added.
And I am arguing against your first two arguments upon which your conclusion is based: (1) that rape is so unique a beast that; (2) it requires this specific rule.
I am doing this by pointing out:
1. All criminal accusations come with some risk of reputational loss and suffering.
2. Racism permeates the whole of our justice system and most people make wrong assumptions about guilt and innocence with respect to minorities regardless of the crime purportedly committed.
3. It's incorrect to assume that rape accusations are somehow based on more 'limited evidence' than any other accusation when that will vary from case-to-case.
4. Preempting the argument that rape is somehow unique because it deals with competing narratives when that is, in actuality, a reality for the vast majority of crimes but peoples' mental conceptions somehow compartmentalize rape as unique among them. My guess is that it's because we all have sex and consequently are more likely to find ourselves in the position of the accused in a rape crime than, for example, a murder investigation because we don't commonly find ourselves in situations that would implicate murder, but I digress.
There's more to my post so this is a non-exhaustive summary but there you go.### Human: I never said rape is unique because it deals with competing narratives. I never mention that in the slightest. I also never said rape accusations are based on less evidence than other cases. I was saying, as you have said, that many accusations are based on limited evidence. the fact that this is true of all cases does not make it untrue for rape.
the reason I find rape to be unique is that it is a more volatile issue than most other crimes. Aaron Hernandez, one of the best players in the league, was accused of murder (and later convicted). Jameis Winston was accused of rape, and never charged. Which got more media attention? Hernandez for a couple days, Winston for like 2 months.
again, look to the topic. this is not a CMV about protecting the accused of all cases, it is only about protecting the identity of accused in rape cases. There is an argument that the same could be said for all cases, but that is a different debate.### Assistant: I know you didn't say every single one of these things. I did. I raised them because they're pertinent to your foundational arguments and question their integrity. I quoted what i was responding to so these unraised issues were ultimately tethered to an assertion you did make.
That's the point of this forum: you have a view and we raise issues that might modify or change that view, including exposing inferential leaps that possibly aren't warranted and other related issues that have some bearing on your position but haven't yet been contemplated.
We're not restricted to your closed universe or else view-changing likely wouldn't occur because the parameters would necessarily be tailored to further your conclusion.
All typos possibly in this post are due to autocorrect.### Human: >We're not restricted to your closed universe or else view-changing likely wouldn't occur because the parameters would necessarily be tailored to further your conclusion.
my closed universe? honestly? what makes you think I'm close minded? because I want to stay on topic?
I have no ulterior motives for this debate, I am simply searching for counter-argument to protecting alleged rapists identity.
if anyone provides something logical, my view will be changed. you aren't even trying.### Assistant: Closed universe doesn't mean close minded. It means another party constricted what you're allowed to use and consider when replying. If someone tells you to address an issue using only these five sources, for example, that's a closed universe because you're limited in what information you can use and the issues you can address to respond.### Human: [deleted] |
### Human: Climate change is a primarily a result of human actions. CMV### Assistant: The number of papers published in a one year period does nothing to say if its actually true or not nor about the quality of the arguments.
In the first half of the 20th century you could have produced similar numbers for the support of lobotomy as a common treatment for the mentally ill.### Human: It does, however, make you seriously question why all the people who research it professionally come to the same basic conclusion. The social psych explanations (e.g., groupthink) of this are possibly true and plausible, but they're not the simplest explanation either. The simplest explanation is that the evidence really is on the side of human-caused climate change.### Assistant: > The social psych explanations (e.g., groupthink) of this are possibly true and plausible, but they're not the simplest explanation either.
This is the problem with Occam's Razor. The choices are;
**Group think:** People want to be published. The easiest way to get published is not get challenged on the conclusion and so they act accordingly.
**No group think/Evidence is really there:** People step outside of their highly focused world, a world that they have dedicated their working lives towards. Remove themselves from any preconceived ideas, human behavior bias, any influence from their daily interactions with other specialists and maybe from what they teach in classes every week. And there is no one watching if they are removed from this bias or there is no penalty or reward for removing this bias, so they have no real reason to remove this bias, but for some reason they do. They then sit down an write a long paper that makes a conclusion that is perfectly free of this bias and outside influence.
From the way I presented the two choices, the simplest explanation is that there is group think.### Human: >From the way I presented the two choices, the simplest explanation is that there is group think.
Of course there "is group think", but the way in which you presented the two choices blatantly ignores scientific methods designed to mitigate the effects of bias.### Assistant: "Mitigate" as in "lessen the effects" or as in "totally remove"?
If its not "totally remove" then you still need to take everything into consideration because its still there.
If its "totally remove" and you have no proof then its makes the "No group think/Evidence is really there" more complex than "Group think" option because you have still need to include following; "Assume that scientific method can totally eliminate all human bias from the development, execution and selection and judging of a paper even though it is all controlled by humans who tend to be biased."
If its "totally remove" and you have something less than proof, then you need to include this "less than proof" into the "No group think/Evidence is really there" and you still have something more complex than the "Group think" option.### Human: By its definition, mitigate means to lessen to effects of something.
In any case, you appear to be dismissing evidence of human involvement in climate change entirely without addressing the evidence itself. Perhaps your own conclusions are informed by bias and groupthink. |
### Human: CMV:The fact that rich people can afford better/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel.### Assistant: > a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents
You're always going to get an imbalance of rich vs poor, even when doing something like this. I can see this going at least two ways:
1. The rich side pays nothing, and chooses themselves to represent, with private advice from a really good group of lawyers. For a corporation, it could be that the corporation already employs a lawyer. Essentially, the money is pushed outside the courts where it can't be managed.
2. The rich side pays lots for representation, but can still find better lawyers because they have a lot more time on their side, and a lot more contacts that would allow them to know the best lawyers.### Human: I think the core is this argument is "they'll find loop holes, so we shouldn't bother".
Why not, you know, try to close the loop holes too? Don't dismiss the idea for poor implementation; why not try to provide constructive feedback?
If you can eliminate the idea of lawyers providing free counsel, which would be pretty easy; lawyers aren't known for their generosity with their time, then you could even the playing field a lot.### Assistant: Because loopholes are necessary in law, as they account for non-normal situations.
Think of it like this (very simplistic) example:
A good, straightforward, no loophole law would be "do not kill"
But what about self defense? Or accidents? We need to add loopholes to account for these types of situations.
Sure, this is an exaggerated example, but the idea that a law can be free of all loopholes is flawed. And because these loopholes are necessary, they'll be exploitable by people with time and means to do so.### Human: I think that people will always find loop holes. But I also think that this is not a place where loopholes are appropriate; the idea here is that the ability to compete in legal issues should be equal. That's not a loophole, that's an uneven playing field.### Assistant: And when it's not rich vs rich, but average joe vs average joe?
Should the state be required to appoint all attorneys?
What about pro-bono work?
It's not a simple situation. |
### Human: CMV: I believe humans should be reversibly sterilized until the age of 25 at which time they can apply for a license to have a child.### Assistant: This has so many problems and we've done this topic so many times on CMV.
1. who gets to decide what should be on the test or what enough money is? There's always some kind of bias with things like this.
2. who's going to pay for it all?
3. We have a right to bodily autonomy, I don't think we should allow our government to force us to have a medical procedure done to us. It's a terrible precedent to set.### Human: >This has so many problems and we've done this topic so many times on CMV.
Call me a noob =)
>1. who gets to decide what should be on the test or what enough money is? There's always some kind of bias with things like this.
I decide. Minimum = college education with one full year of employment at approx $30k/year salary.
>2. who's going to pay for it all?
Free procedures/meds funded by tax revenue. Mandatory abortions for any accidental conceptions.
3. We have a right to bodily autonomy, I don't think we should allow our government to force us to have a medical procedure done to us. It's a terrible precedent to set.
I argue the precedent has already been set through punishment against parents with un-vaccinated children. Consider this a "pregnancy vaccine."### Assistant: Only people that can afford college education, or want to go to college, can procreate?### Human: For the good of humanity, yes: To prove ability to learn and demonstrate that through graduation; to prove ability to select a path and follow through; and to secure a good income for the child's basic needs.### Assistant: So all of our construction workers, skilled laborers, entrepreneurs, artists, and various other career paths that don't require college education will never be able to reproduce?### Human: I believe completion of some alternative "trade school" degree might suffice. Artists can degree in their chosen field (drama, music, literature). For entrepreneurs, this may entail developing industry standards to judge success, though a minimum standard could be set that a person who owns their own business must operate successfully for a certain number of years as proof of intellectual capacity and financial stability (perhaps 5yrs or more).### Assistant: Have you read Brave New World?### Human: Not in a good long time. What is the relevant reference?### Assistant: It's all about eugenics, carefully selecting a population to fill different roles in society. The "utopia" in BNW is devoid of any intimacy or spontaneity.
The trajectory of this world you're fleshing out is similar to that in BNW. Their first attempt--made up of solely Alpha class people, intelligent and beautiful--failed. So they developed the Beta and Gamma (stocky, stupid, and hard working) classes to fill society's other needs.
I think your version of BNW is equally as problematic. It's hard to predict the side-effects of state policy, but it's a fair projection that state-mandated invasive surgery that impacts your ability to plan your future as an autonomous adult human being will do some damage to the human spirit.
It hinders the glorious spontaneity that makes life sparkle.
Edit: I think you are considering this as a possibility because your intentions are good: you see poverty and overpopulation as problems. And they are. But eugenics is not the answer. Education is. Distribution of wealth is. Autonomy is. Humanity is.### Human: This proposal does not stop people from falling in love and marrying any more than the minimum legal age limits already do. It does not stop them from being spontaneous any more than speed limits. there are no requirements on being "beautiful" or strong," only intelligent and capable with access to resources necessary to provide for a child. There would be no restrictions on "genetic perfection" or lack of inheritable diseases (though perhaps their should be.) Just a minimum age, education and income level, all of which are beneficial to the child that will be born to those suitable parents.### Assistant: A universal policy that physically enforces one's inability to have children is a removal of autonomy. Period.### Human: Is that bad? Is autonomy the highest moral standard, regardless of whom it may harm? |
### Human: I believe that a significant portion of military funding in the US should be used instead to fund education. CMV.### Assistant: Military funding in the U.S. is sized to match the strategic security needs of the state, which were most recently updated in any meaningful sense by then Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in 2001 (prior to the 9/11 event) in what's known as the "1-4-2-1" doctrine: defend the homeland; deter hostilities in up to four theaters; have the strength to win two simultaneous conflicts in these regions; and do so decisively. Some of the deterrence is wrapped up in our nuclear deterrent (the U.S. maintains one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals in the world, with a strategic triad of delivery systems: subs, planes, and missiles); much of it is tied up in having by far the most powerful navy, including ten carrier groups, which allow us to project force to anywhere on the planet. We have large strategic bomber and ICBM forces that can hold at risk any target on the planet.
While the military is in the process of downsizing/"right-sizing" to match the requirements of emerging threats (see all the recent hue and cry over the Administration's modest cuts to military spending), this is not a response to any significant change in strategic posture.
If a significant change in spending is needed, then this must be coupled with a change in doctrine and this is not the sort of thing to be done lightly, as there are very serious political ramifications to any major military downgrade--no President wishes for his or her legacy to be as the Administration that lost the U.S.'s military superpower status. Moreover, if such cuts were to happen, there's identically zero chance that the money would be routed instead to our schools or other infrastructure. It's axiomatic in the U.S. with both major political parties that "our schools are failing" and "the problem isn't money." Convincing us to give up our superpower status (which benefits us in several indirect ways--e.g. the demand for dollars worldwide) in order to throw more federal money at schools is a non-starter. While it sounds nice in the abstract, there's simply no practical way to get there from here.
Edit: typo fix### Human: Sadly, I agree that there isn't a practical way to do this. :/
it just frustrates me to see inner city schools all over the country with such shit education; and infuriates me to see my yearly college tuition at a PUBLIC school over $30,000. Luckily I have an athletic scholarship to cover most of that, but if I didn't I would either not be able to afford it, or would come out of school with ~$100,000 in debt.### Assistant: I agree on the unfortunate impracticality. While I don't necessarily agree with either two parties that money won't go a long way toward helping the problem (our private schools do quite a good job on 2.5x the money per student), I think we're unlikely to ever see a shuffling of significant revenue from Defense to Education. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then significant budget cuts and sequestration together took deep tolls on our war-fighting ability. It may be a generation before we can recover an adequate state of readiness.
(Incidentally, I also attended university on an athletic scholarship. If you don't mind my asking, what sport?)### Human: I run cross country and track and field at Cal. You?### Assistant: I ran track and field at Drake University back in the day (25 years now?)### Human: Distance runner? or something else?### Assistant: Sprinter and high/long/triple jumper. |
### Human: CMV: The term "Overdraft Protection" is misleading, and that term should no longer be used by banks.### Assistant: It is called Overdraft Protection because it protects you by allowing you to overdraft. It allows you to overdraw your account in an emergency without facing any real penalties for it.### Human: In my CMV I mentioned that I would not accept answers about protection from chargebacks or fees since better terms for that would be "Overdraft Allowance," "Overdraft **Fee** Protection," "or Chargeback Protection"
If a police officer says, "I will protect you," that implies the officer will do something to prevent you from being injured. Just like how Overdraft Protection sounds like it's implying that the bank will do something to prevent your account from being overdrawn.### Assistant: The thing is that Overdraft Protection does prevent your account from being overdrawn. It allows you to still complete a transaction without facing any normal penalties of that go with being overdrawn. It protects you from going beyond your means while still being able to go about your life.### Human: > Overdraft Protection does prevent your account from being overdrawn
It's my understanding that when your account goes negative, its overdrawn. If that's the definition of an overdraft, than overdraft protection does **not** protect your account from being overdrawn.### Assistant: Yes it does, it'll use all the money it can till its $0.00, then it pulls the remaining funds from a second account.### Human: ∆ You have changed my view because I did not know that it took funds from a second account.### Assistant: > ∆ You have changed my view because I did not know that it took funds from a second account.
It only does this if you have a second account. If you only have one account with the bank, they just pwn you and you end up with negative balance + the overdraft fee. I much prefer the (often non-default) option of having my card declined if there are insufficient funds for the transaction.### Human: In that case my view is still not changed. Overdraft protection should prevent your account from going negative. The term is deceptive. To change my view, you must tell me why changing the term to something like **overdraft authorization** is somehow bad.### Assistant: > Overdraft protection should prevent your account from going negative.
Holy Jesus, **it does** your account can't go negative with Overdraft Protection
Overdraft Protection = Your account will never go negative |
### Human: CMV: Matrin Shkreli is a victim of the uninformed and extremely biased media.### Assistant: I know Shkreli gets a lot of hate for his price gauging on Daraprim, and after watching interviews and hearing him out, sure you could say the big pharma companies are just as bad.
The problem with Shkreli is that he is under investigation for securities fraud, forget the drug scandal most people associate him with, he is accused of repeatedly losing money for investors and lying to them about it, while also illegally taking assets from one of his companies to pay off debtors in another. It makes the whole Daraprim scandal raise eyebrows because people are thinking he was price gauging to make up money he owed to his debtors from previous investments in his companies. He bought a drug company and paid too much, then tried to make up for losses by raising prices and when you owe people a lot of money, you start to do things that may seem a bit risky and unethical.### Human: I would bet good money he didn't commit securities fraud.
He's a media/government scapegoat. He did nothing out of the ordinary, but it blew up and media and govt leveraged it. The difference between him and Pfizer is he has a much smaller legal team. This whole thing is shameful.### Assistant: I'll take that bet. The facts do not look good. His "co-conpirator" (likely his cofounder of MSMB Capital (an earlier company wh/ the fraud charges are based on)), 10 former investors, two former employees, and his auditor are all testifying against him and all telling the same story. It is highly likely that he will be convicted for fraud, fraud that includes betraying the investors and employees who trusted him. See:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1438533/000119312515292581/d19898dex991.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/former-hedge-fund-manager-and-new-york-attorney-indicted-multimillion-dollar-fraud
http://rdeliason.com/2015/12/18/analyzing-the-indictment-of-martin-shkreli/### Human: I'm not saying that he won't be convicted, I'm saying he did nothing wrong. I'm saying he's a hedge fund guy. It's impossible to completely cover your tracks as a hedge fund guy. The reason they don't go down is because the entire weight of the federal government have no time to go after them.### Assistant: You don't usually need to cover your tracks if you didn't do anything wrong.### Human: Hedge funds stay alive by pushing the boundaries of the system. They aren't doing anything unethical, but they are just uncharted territory. If the government wants you gone, it's not that hard to make a case. |
### Human: CMV: As an 18 year old man, the smartest decision I can make with my body right now is to get a vasectomy.### Assistant: Sperm can only be saved for like 10-12 years. It's medically questionable for healthy pregnancy after that.
What if you decide to have children at 30 year old?
OOPS, too late?
http://www.spermbankdirectory.com/frozen-sperm-efficacy
Besides you will probably want to use a condom anyway for non serious sex becaue if STDs, so what's the point really?### Human: I would use condoms even with a vasectomy for STD protection mostly, but also because it's just extra peace of mind because both methods aren't 100%### Assistant: So you don't really gain that much by vasectomy, right? Need condoms anyway.
Also, you did not adress sperm shelf life issue.### Human: You gain peace of mind. An unwanted pregnancy is potentially a much more serious consequence than contracting an STD, so you'd want extra protection for that.### Assistant: condoms are 98% effective.
Add spermicide and pulling out, and vasectomy is REALLY redundant.### Human: It's very offtopic, but pulling out = missing out. |
### Human: CMV: Smoking bans on college campus are NOT an intrusion upon students' rights.### Assistant: I think the strongest argument against your position is the fact that outdoors is a very big place and there is almost certainly enough space for smokers and nonsmokers to avoid each other if they're willing to observe some very simple, unobtrusive guidelines about where to stand and when.
If this could give more people more of what they want, what's the harm?### Human: Every day I walk through the spacious, outdoor campus and smokers walk around me, often blowing smoke in my face (in one instance the smoke came from a surprisingly large joint, bit that's a different issue). We have a campus wide smoking ban, besides in the designated smoking areas. Even with the ban, I inhale enough cigarette smoke every day second hand to make me feel concerned. I think banning it outside is perfectly appropriate.
Edit: I've posted this on about ten other comments so I might as well post it here. Here's a quote from the Surgeon General's report on SHS (second hand smoke):
"There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful."
This is the ground off of which I am basing my argument. SHS is harmful, therefore smokers should not be allowed to smoke in highly populated areas where non-smokers will inhale their smoke.### Assistant: >often blowing smoke in my face
Who does that? Nobody that *I* know that smokes. Sounds more like you need a ban on assholes or you're just being overly sensitive.
>We have a campus wide smoking ban, besides in the designated smoking areas.
Well, then you already have regulations in place that people just don't adhere to. How would banning smoking altogether make the situation better if people already don't give a fuck?
>I inhale enough cigarette smoke every day second hand to make me feel concerned.
You shouldn't be. It's not like you're in the same car with somebody smoking and the windows are up. Diffusion is so fucking fast there won't be much toxic material left once you smell something.### Human: The last straw before my university banned smoking was that people refused to observe the posted restrictions on areas where one could and could not smoke.
You're looking at it, I think, from the perspective of "if they don't listen to this rule, why would they listen to a stricter one?" I don't know that this really makes sense, because from the university's perspective the issue is very different.
In the eyes of campus officials, they are allowing students the ability to smoke on campus, and if students are taking advantage of this and not observing the restrictions put in place, then what is their motivation to allow the behavior to continue? Why not ban *all* smoking on campus?### Assistant: For the people not smoking in the designated areas, nothing would change. How is that an effective method? They were not allowed to smoke where they are now, so why should they care if the designated smoking areas are repealed? They weren't in them anyway. The only people you are hurting with this are the people already abiding by the rules in place. Keeping the rules as they are and actually giving out warnings and/or fines to the people not adhering to the current rules seems much more effective and sensible.### Human: The way the policy was written before, it was essentially toothless -- there was nothing someone could do other than say "you need to be X feet from a building entrance if you want to smoke". You're right that giving out fines to those in violation of the existing rules would be the most sensible solution, but it's hard to get right in practice (which means the university won't be very receptive to trying to implement it).
It leaves judgement calls like whether or not someone intentionally defied the rules or if they didn't realize that there was an entrance to a building just behind the brick wall they were leaning against, and with anything like that you risk slapping a fine on people who unwittingly broke the rule.
They changed the policy to forbid smoking on campus and impose a fine for anyone in violation, and an outright ban is much easier to enforce which makes it more attractive from the university's perspective. |
### Human: I do not believe that the raising of children should be seen as an innate right, CMV### Assistant: In the case of physical/sexual abuse and neglect, children SHOULD be taken away and can be legally. That leaves indoctrination.
1) Losing your parents and being raised by another family is traumatic. Furthermore, where do you plan to put them? In the foster care system? In the United States the foster care system comes with issues of abuse (not necessarily indoctrination - more physical, sexual, etc.) too. We are allowed to raise our children because the alternatives aren't as pretty as you'd imagine.
2) Who gets to decide what type of principles get to be counted as indoctrination? You are giving that power to the state. What happens when an administration gets elected that has far more radical ideals than you do, and believes that YOUR beliefs are dangerous?
3) People can still have children even after you take them away. Is your plan to, in essence, "neuter" those who don't meet the criteria set out by the state? I think you can start to see, perhaps, where you might be handing over an incredible power to the government. And if you leave these people still capable of having children, whose to say they won't continue to produce more, which means more kids that you need to find a home for. Which leads me to...
4) Most foster care systems are already very full.### Human: I see that implementing this is far more dangerous than accepting that abuse happens. Practically, this give the government far more power then I had realised, and the alternative systems would just not be viable
∆### Assistant: So now do you think that raising children *is* an innate right? That doesn't seem to follow logically from this discussion.### Human: No, but other parts of my view were changed### Assistant: Cool. I just wasn't sure if people would stop discussing this, thinking that the main view had been successfully challenged. |
### Human: I believe that highway speed limits should be removed and replaced with a very strong enforcement of anti- tailgating laws. CMV.### Assistant: I agree with you that tailgating laws should be enforced more strictly. I disagree, however, that there should be no speed limit.
The absence of a speed limit, if I understand your proposal correctly, would mean that people are free to drive at whatever speed they feel is safe, so long as they don't follow too closely. In many areas, particularly in areas with windy roads, speed limits are necessary to provide drivers entering an intersection enough time to react to an oncoming vehicle. For example, if I'm trying to make a left-hand turn onto a road, and can only see a short distance to my right (because of a curve in the road) I need to have the speed of a car coming from my right to be limited such that I can safely enter the roadway.### Human: I would would only suggest abolishing the speed limit on limited access highways that have on ramps and no intersections. If a road transitioned from limited access into a more complex situation, such as a road crossing, it should have a speed limit.### Assistant: Well that makes more sense. Still you have the problem of people overestimating their ability to handle a vehicle at a high speed.### Human: This is true, but think of it this way. When there is a speed limit people feel forced to go up to that speed, even when they are not comfortable with those speeds. Sure It would take a bit of time for it to settle down, but I believe that if you have limited access highways as described above, and you have at least 3 Lanes in each direction. Slower drivers pick the outer lanes and the ones that feel they can handle speeds pick the inner lanes.
Restrictions still apply to caravans and other vehicles.
Autobahn is a great idea, when people know their own ability to drive and their own car.### Assistant: This is actually pretty important. If you abolish a speed limit, you still absolutely need a minimum. The problem of speed variance is huge.
If I'm on a highway going 30 and someone else is going 90, there will be problems. And the problem will probably happen with the good doobie trying to go 70 in the slow lane (let's be honest...nobody goes slower than 70 on my local highways unless they're over 70 years in age)... On a bend, you just might not be able to see granny, and won't be able to change lanes because of Mr. Speed Demon.
Which is actually the biggest problem of them all. There are traffic issues caused by two lanes having too varied a speed. You cannot safely get into a high speed lane where everyone is going 30mph faster than the middle lane... I've often seen traffic patterns where the middle+right lane are stuck going 30-40 due to slow drivers in front... and the left lane is going so quick it's dangerous to drivers. |
### Human: CMV: Limits on who can run for office are really limits on who voters are allowed to vote for.### Assistant: The only limits in the US on who can run for office are citizenship, area of residence for local positions, and age for congress and president. (Edit: and criminal history as mentioned by another poster.)
Do you think that an elected official shouldn't have to reside in the region that he or she is representing?
Do you think that an elected official shouldn't have to be a legal adult?
*Edit: Do you think that it's okay for convicted felons to be elected representatives? (Would you also remove the restriction on convicted felons voting in that case?)*
You already mentioned that you do agree with the citizenship requirement.### Human: I don't think any of those things need to be legislated (including citizenship which I don't agree with and didn't mention?) Just because I wouldn't vote for a fifteen year old Brazillian, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to do so. After all, the only scenario in which the law would matter would be if a majority wanted to elect said fifteen year old Brazillian, in which case i'd have to trust that they had a good reason.### Assistant: Just to be clear, it isn't illegal to vote for anybody. It's illegal for certain people to hold office.### Human: Illegal may be the wrong word, but the point stands.### Assistant: Well I think your complaint would be better directed at the laws preventing certain people from holding office. People who are ineligible for office run all the time. An example off the top of my head is [Rush D. Holt, Sr.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Holt,_Sr.) who ran and was elected as a US Senator from West Virginia when he was 29 years old, but was not allowed to take his seat until he turned 30.### Human: What benefit was gained from keeping an elected senator from his seat?
I hadn't heard of this, but to me it's a great illustration of why the age limit, at least, is unnecessary.### Assistant: The idea behind it is that only people with a certain amount of experience are qualified to hold office.
To be clear, I agree with you in principle. I just think that you could frame your argument in a better, more clear manner.### Human: It still limits voters, though. Even if only by a few months, West Virginia had their rightfully elected representative delayed by a technicality. This isn't just a limitation on the elected, but also on the represented people. |
### Human: I believe that pay and salary information for every worker should be public and easily accessible for everyone to see. CMV.### Assistant: I think that people have a right to privacy, and this means the ability to not let people know how much you make, benefits to society be damned.
But in terms of drawbacks, I'd be worried that if this info was easily accessible on some website or something, it would lead to price discrimination. So if Amazon knew your identity, and knew how much you made, they'd charge you more for a toothbrush than someone with less money.### Human: In the US it's illegal to charge people different prices### Assistant: Nope, this is completely wrong. Price discrimination is positively rampant across all the industries that can do it without consumers finding out (because they don't want to piss them off, not because it's illegal). You simply can't discriminate on the basis of certain categories. It's the same as with employment: I'm allowed to pay my employees different salaries, but not explicitly "because they're a woman" or "because they're black", etc, because those are protected classes.### Human: It's only illegal for commodities of similar value, not services### Assistant: Are you thinking of robinson-patman? I believe that only applies to distributors that are creating an uncompetitive market among their customers. Eg if p&g were to sell goods at lower prices to walgreens but not the mom and pop shop on the corner, thus creating an unfair competitive environment at the retail level.
Typed on a phone, sorry is my phrasing is a bit incoherent |
### Human: CMV: Instead of "bands" for income tax there should be a continuous formula for tax rates### Assistant: Nothing involving exponents will ever be seen by the general public as simpler.### Human: Then we don't have a tax problem, we have an education problem.### Assistant: Rather, we have both### Human: Or some people are just not that bright.### Assistant: Exponents (or multiplying something three times) is never simpler than "subtract the number in box 6 from the number in box 5."### Human: If your problem is filing it's hard to beat addition and subtraction. But when it comes to understanding the tax code, it's hard to beat a single graphable formula. |
### Human: CMV:The size of the House of Representatives should be increased### Assistant: What you are proposing is called the [Wyoming Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule). While I agree that the size of the House of Representatives should be increased, I think the Wyoming Rule is not a sustainable solution.
If you apply the rule for historical U.S. populations, you get this:
Census|Year|Size
--------|----|----
1st|1790|65
2nd|1800|80
3rd|1810|98
4th|1820|173
5th|1830|167
6th|1840|218
7th|1850|262
8th|1860|590
9th|1870|889
10th|1880|764
11th|1890|1,308
12th|1900|1,862
13th|1910|1,095
14th|1920|1,362
15th|1930|1,344
16th|1940|1,188
17th|1950|924
18th|1960|786
19th|1970|666
20th|1980|565
21st|1990|545
22nd|2000|568
23rd|2010|546
So, in the past we would have had a drastically larger House despite a smaller population. I think the Wyoming Rule is just a band-aid solution to legislature size. It is dependent on the *relative* size of states, and not on some fixed ratio. Under it, we could have and have had a unusably sized House.
The worldwide trend in legislature size is for the more populous chamber (in our case, the House) to have as many members as the cubed root of the population. For the U.S., that would be a House size of about 685. I think this is a better metric and still gives us a workable size.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Because it is generally a bad idea to impose a law that you know won't work in all circumstances, in the hopes that future Congresses will know when to set that law aside.
One unfortunate possibility would be for Congress to hold onto the rule even when it makes no sense. Another unfortunate possibility is that Congress sees that it's not meant for every circumstance, so they repeal it at a time that maximizes the advantage to a particular party.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's not what I'm talking about, though. This is implementing a standard with full knowledge that it isn't universal, instead of a better (known) methodology, and hoping that Congress would fix it when it breaks.
This is more like having the President's salary automatically double every year, and hoping that Congress has the courage to stand up before it breaks the bank. Or, as a more realistic example, implementing draconian cuts to future domestic and military spending in the hopes that Congress will come to a better deal with their backs against the wall. Or setting the size of the House permanently at 435 without regard for how the population might grow.
It's a bad way to govern, and Congress should avoid doing things like this. |
### Human: CMV: Marijuana is not as great medically as it is purported to be, and is often advocated because people don't want to admit that legalization is the real agenda.### Assistant: I think you're only half right. The medical uses are pretty phenomenal and the science behind that has been strangled for 80 years. When you dig into what has been proven, you start thinking damned near _everyone_ should partake, if only for prophylaxis. And then there're the large number of folks who use it 'recreationally' as a prerequisite to a healthy psychology (if that idea bugs you, ask yourself how you'd feel if I said "prozac" or "synthroid", instead.).
But as to motives, yes, of course it's a camel's nose for many advocates. But so what? You can honestly think weed is the best thing ever, should be cheap and ubiquitous, and be a white guy with dreadlocks, and you can want total drug legalization, and you can coldly calculate that medical can sneak past social political filters and bring your greater agenda closer to reality, and still be totally sincere and authentic in your advocacy of medical. Even *winkwinknudgenudge* "medical".
Wanting more doesn't make you a hypocrite for asking for less.### Human: This is a good point. I disagree with your second sentence currently, as a quick look on papers on my universities webpage seems to show that the medical uses are exaggerated by groups which lobby for medicinal Marijuana. Not saying you are incorrect, just that I remain unconvinced of that fact.
You are quite correct that even if the medical uses are mediocre, that it is still a reasonable political strategy. However than doesn't change that the agenda is still legalization.### Assistant: This is the difficulty faced by those who are using medicinal marijuana for legitimate purposes.
You have to look at this as two separate goals. The Goal of legalization is to make marijuana legal at a federal level, and the gateway legislation (because I think I'm funny), has been the legalization of Medicinal marijuana.
But legalizing medical marijuana is, in a way, its own separate fight. A fight to provide access to a low-impact option to people looking to reduce seizures, lessen chronic pain, deal with anxiety or depression, or to go through chemotherapy without puking into a bucket every 15 minutes.
But *even though* groups like NORML have used medicinal marijuana to springboard into the discussion about recreational legalization, that doesn't discount the fact that there are a large number of people currently using Medicinally to great effect.
I'm one of them.
Most of the other smokers I talk to always give me the same line. I tell them I smoke marijuana medicinally, and the response is always, "We all do (*wink*)"
And its not like alcohol doesn't have some legitimate medical uses. Red Wine has been prescribed by modern medicine for years to, for example, help soften tremors. But I smoke weed the same way someone with a severe heart condition takes an aspirin every morning.
But Before I started medicating I was having a panic attack a day. I haven't had one in 10 months. Weirdly, thats how long I've been smoking marijuana.
**TL;DR Just because legalizing medicinal marijuana is being used as a way to ease policy to legalizing recreational marijuana, that doesn't mean that marijuana isn't being used by a large number of patients to treat Illness or Disorders.**### Human: I hope you dont drive. Do you? One of my biggest gripes is people who drive high/drunk.### Assistant: Using marijuana medicinally doesn't necessarily mean being strung out. Should anybody who takes Xanax for panic disorders not drive? What about small amounts of codeine?
Obviously anybody who has taken enough of almost any substance shouldn't operate a motor vehicle, but taking the small amounts often required for medical conditions generally don't put people past that criteria.### Human: Xanax? No, but I don't want someone who has taken codeine to drive either.### Assistant: I think you are unfamiliar with the actual effects of small doses of these compounds.### Human: I kinda am.### Assistant: Then you probably shouldn't make judgments against them.### Human: I kinda am familiar with them is what I said. |
### Human: CMV: Police power should never be "for hire" for private entities### Assistant: Certain large events require a large police presence just due to the high concentration of people (parades, large outdoor concerts, large demonstrations). Why not make the organizers pay for the burden they are putting on the police department.### Human: I think it's fine to require payment for extra police in an area to be included in permit costs. My stance is that those payments should not buy police authority in the sense that the police can shut down traffic to benefit your customers, etc. For example, at a concert, it seems there is a difference between having police around to help prevent crime (via show of force) and to address any crimes that may occur. However, only private security should be able to enforce non-legal requirements that organizers may have (e.g. police should not be able to enforce "no outside food allowed" policies. If the organizers want to kick you off private property for violating a policy like that, they can, just as a theater or neighborhood bar can. It only becomes a police matter if you refuse to leave and are thereby trespassing).### Assistant: This is by and large what police do when hired, though they'll be a little more active on the trespassing issue just because it tends to devolve into a fistfight pretty quickly and they're not dumb.
But things like managing traffic are what cops do as part of their normal jobs. One job of police officers can be to manage unusual traffic situations, so a cop can go stand in an intersection when a traffic light is out and manage the traffic.
Handling the outflow from a stadium isn't that different to me. It's an unusual and irregular traffic situation which is the sort of thing cops regularly intervene to handle.### Human: Ok maybe it is ok at a concert because of a increased amount of traffic. But I drive by a bank who most days has a officer out there to stop traffic for anyone coming in or out of their parking lot.
It's not special, just another parking lot along the street like all the others. Only this one has a officer out there to stop traffic for it's customers.### Assistant: Well, yeah, they probably shouldn't do that. The bank should also be forced to redesign its entrance if its sufficiently dangerous that it needs an officer all the time.### Human: It's not dangerous though. It's exactly like every other parking lot in that area. Only they get a officer to stop traffic so people can get in/out.### Assistant: Then yeah, they shouldn't have that.
Also if they're spending that much to rent a cop, why not just petition the city to give them a light or something?### Human: It's actually like 200ft from a set of lights.
So it sucks because some days I will be going along, it's a green but then the officer steps out and stops traffic to let a single car in/out. Now it's a red light and I have to wait.### Assistant: How can this possibly be profitable? Do that many more people go to their bank just because the cop lets them out into traffic?
Edit: don't mean to say I don't believe you. It just baffles me.### Human: No idea.
It's BOA, small branch, nothing fancy. Maybe like 5-10 cars in it's parking lot when I drive by in the afternoon.
It has always pissed me off, because on it's BOA. Two, the cop stops all traffic for a single vehicle, it's a four lane road like 200ft from a set of lights.
The car could just wait until the red was up to exit the parking lot when traffic would be stopped anyways. But no, BOA needs a cop out there.### Assistant: Maybe it's a known dangerous intersection that just happens to have a bank on site and it has more to do with that. I find it strange that a business would pay a cop or get special treatment just for the driving convenience f their customers. If that's the case then yea that's messed up. |
### Human: CMV: Bathrooms divided by gender are useless.### Assistant: From an HR perspective, it reduces the potential for sexual harassment complaints to keep them separate.
From a purely selfish perspective, no man wants to deal with the horrors that women are capable of inflicting on a public washroom.### Human: Every time this question comes up on CMV, some form of this sentiment "the horrors that women are capable of inflicting on a public washroom" is brought up, with various anecdotes from people who work somewhere that the women's washroom is disgusting. So I'll add my own anecdote. I'm a woman who frequently uses both men's and women's washrooms - at universities, bars, public events, airports, gas stations. I've done this in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, and Peru, and have never found this stereotype to be true. I usually find that either both washrooms are quite clean, or the women's is somewhat cleaner than the men's. Only twice in my life have I discovered a women's restroom that was a true horror, once at a gas station in Florida (my husband and I compared descriptions, and the men's really did sound worse that day, although both had feces somewhere it did not belong), and once at a concert in Peru, where I saw only the truly horrifying women's washroom and did not see the men's, so can't compare in that instance.
Personally, I agree with OP in the sense that we all use the same bathroom at home. That said, we don't usually share the same bathroom at the same time, especially with strangers. In the US, at least, until we get over some of our Puritanical views on sex and bodily functions, I think having shared stall-style bathrooms would simply make a lot of people not use the bathroom in public places.### Assistant: You've clearly never worked in a nightclub, it's not that women are filthier than men, it's that drunk women are filthy in general.
Of course drunk men are too, they piss all over, block the toilets with bottles, or wads of shitty TP. They puke in the sink, in the urinals in the corners of the stalls or all over the back of the toilet.
Now, women do all that too - but they also have the nightmare (and health risk) inducing issue of tampons and pads - which quite often block the toilets, which women like men continue to piss in and all over the floor.
So drunk men and women do the same thing, it is simply that women have an additional disgusting thing they can do to taint a bathroom over men.
Oh and women will quite often try and piss in the sinks, or in any corner of the bathroom then can squat in, men at least tend to stick to the troughs even if they miss a lot.
Nothing like getting to the end of a nights work and going into the womens bathroom to discover a bloody maxi pad stuck to the mirror (happened more than once in my 3 years working the bar).### Human: Yes, I have used men's and women's bathrooms in nightclubs, but no, I've never worked at one. I've often suspected the sentiment described had to do with menstruation, which really seems to disgust most men in a way that defecation doesn't. I suppose men never get semen anywhere in public restrooms? (This is a rhetorical question, in the sense that I have, indeed, encountered exactly that.) I don't want *any* of these bodily fluids anywhere other than in the toilet or waste bin, but each has its own health hazards. Menstrual blood as a disease vector, I don't believe is any more hazardous than feces (although for different diseases) or semen, or blood from a wound, which I've also heard stories of in bathrooms. Nor is menstrual blood any more intrinsically disgusting - this is a matter of perception on the individual's part, as to what is disgusting/not/most disgusting.
Drunks are gross in the bathroom. I can totally get on board with this idea. The most disgusting bathrooms I've encountered do tend to be at bars/nightclubs.### Assistant: It's not menstruation specifically, it's blood - I think it's fair to say that blood is worse psychologically than feces and urine for probably the majority of people.
Blood is fairly rare in the mens bathroom, as is semen ironically it's more common in the womens bathroom in discarded used condoms.
Feces is also more common in the womens stalls than the mens - men don't flush which is disgusting enough - but women often refuse to sit, which splatters the upper part of the bowl or makes them miss utterly.
Still, feces, liquid blood, urine and vomit could be cleaned by just power hosing the entire area.
tampons and pads on the other hand, you have to pick up and bag - that if no other reason makes them worse.### Human: Granted this is gonna be subjective but I find feces to be wayyy grosser than blood. In fact from worst to least I would say: feces, vomit, blood, urine. I almost switched the last two...### Assistant: I would rate it that when it's my own bodily functions but other people's, blood is easily #1. |
### Human: CMV: You should have the right to refuse service to someone based on your values if the service involves a custom order or requires you to be present at an event that makes you feel uncomfortable.### Assistant: Should businesses have equal or greater rights than that of an individual?### Human: Depends. If the business is a sole proprietorship or one small enough i think they should have the same protections a landlord Who owns less than 4 units and shares living space with tenants has.
A landlord with shared living space owning less than 4 units is free to refuse rental to anyone... they just can't disclose why.### Assistant: If a guy is offering a service through something like Craigslist or by word-of-mouth, I don't see the harm in him refusing service to someone on the basis of whatever... because I don't define that as a business in the traditional sense.
But, a *business* business is a legal entity and, if it's open to the public, then it should be required to *serve* the public at large. That business could not exist outside of society, and society includes people with an infinite number of combinations of values, beliefs, religions, backgrounds, etc. Plus, no business could function without the infrastructure and services that exist because of the contributions of every member of that society.
The taxes one pays isn't like a rental contract, and one's contributions to infrastructure and civil services doesn't mean one actually owns a share of that stuff. Those things are owned by the public. So if your business is *open to the public*, then it better damn well be open to the public. And the public includes the gays.### Human: Yes they should be required to serve gays and even bake a cake for the gays if they cake is generic.
They should not be required to bake a cake with two men kissing on it.### Assistant: Just to clarify, do you think they should be allowed to refuse baking a cake with two black people kissing in it? Or a white and a black person?### Human: ANY reason if it's a customized job. If the color red bothers me and your son wants a red birthday cake too bad.
It amazes me the SJWs are all about people tip toeing around their triggers yet they won't do the same for others### Assistant: Just a follow up question: Are you from the US? Just to try and understand your point of view.### Human: Yes### Assistant: I think it'd be extremely hard to change your view then.
But anyways, I think the core issue is that first, it get's hard to decide what "personalized" or custom would mean. So, specialyl in smaller cities, it gets easier and easier to deny people some services and overtime drive "unwanted" people out of your town.
Let's say there is a town (of mostly racist people) where black people can't get anyone to cater their wedding, do photography work, or even teach their kids, (sure you might say that if you work for the government you'd have to do it but I don't see how morally that'd be different, and also that can apply to tutoring or extra classes not offered at school like languages etc )since it puts them in an environment they are uncomfortable in. And then there is also the nightmare of defining what's a custom job or not. Is doing random maintenance work at home custom? (because it sure puts you in an environment (let's say someone might get uncomfortable working *for* a black person).
Just imagine you move into a new town, (or were born there), and they have exactly this but for atheists. (Add teachers refusing to teach evolution at school/to your kids etc) Wouldn't you feel like a second class citizen? Wouldn't you feel like leaving the town?
So all of a sudden it becomes too easy to discriminate while not breaking the law, and I think that's not a good think, but I don't think I can change your view, specially because of the reverence given to individual rights over the well functioning of society in the US, at least in my limited experience.
Also, about your remark about SJWs, yes they are all caught up in triggers and stuff, but a question? Do you take them seriously? And would you acomodate for all their triggers? Then why'd you acomodate to bigots?
I'm not saying there isn't legitimate triggers or things that we should accomodate for in society, but in the end we have to decide what's legitimate and what isn't, and to me, intolerance isn't.
Hope I at least helped you think about it.### Human: Δ
I think this is where the law and courts would come in.
I would think most people that are religious, would fix a gay persons roof but not bake their wedding cake.
For the few that wouldn't fix the roof (which I would argue is unrelated to their orientation, and no reasonable person should refuse based on the persons sexuality alone) that type of case should be brought to court.
But when your action you perform for the person is specifically related to their orientation (i.e. baking a gay themed cake) or being present at a ceremony, then I think it would be legally defensible to refuse to service them.
I don't think this small town you speak of exists because the law of economics would send in an atheist to fill the economic void.
My main issue with forcing them to provide these services is where do you draw the line?
What about when furrys are protected and a guy wants to sit in your diner all day dressed as a bear and scares your customers away? Should he be allowed to stay just because he identifies as a bearkin?### Assistant: Well, Law of economics wouldn't work (imo) in this case, because it would take enough atheists to move in to fill every lack in service, but no atheist would want to move there because it is clearly a city they wouldn't enjoy living in. And this kinds of small towns do exist, I dont know about it in the US (but I'm pretty sure they do), but where I live there sure are really small towns where if people know you are gay, or even if you just aren't religious, you won't get service anywhere.
I think you missed the point. I was saying that we shouldn't acomodate. You can enforce dresscodes in your diner. Clothes aren't a protected class. But you can't deny a muslim or black person service. You can refuse to photograph a furry in a suit, but you can't refuse to take a picture of a Jew with a kippah, at least not if your reason is that he's a Jew or because he's wearing a Kippah. Protected classes serve for that.
Instead of taking to court in individual cases, it was decided that you couldn't discriminate against protected classes. It's just about adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes.
But if you think you should be able to discriminate agaisn't blacks or people of different religion/gender/age etc. I don't think there's anything I can say to change your opinion.
Just to confirm, regardless of this particular case you talk about in your OP, do you think that protected classes have any value at all? Because you seem to compare discrimination based on them to other kinds, when it really shouldn't be.### Human: I think the very concept of a protected class is a slippery slope, and should be based on phyiscal, observable traits only that you cannot control.
If you're of X religion, X orientation etc. then it would be wise to conceal it (if you fear discrimination) until you know you're in welcoming company.
This is the same advice we give people in the office applying for a job or house (shocking, the same places protected classes come into play) to NOT discuss religion or politics until you are comfortable and know the other persons views well.
If you're black or female or disabled, and cannot change or conceal this fact, it should be protected.
Everything else should not be because it opens the doors for us to accept whatever ludicrous new things the slippery slope SJWs throw at us.### Assistant: The point of protected classes is that you shouldn't have to hide it, living in fear of it being found out. And you do realise that the Slippery Slope argument isn't the most logically sound one right?, unless you can prove exactly how it would make it happen. You should not pass up on doing a right thing, just because maybe, there is a slight chance that it'll increase the probability of a wrong thing happening (specially when they aren't related at all), you should simply be agaisnt the "wrong" thing later.
Also, you seem to really have a gripe with SJW's, but as far as I know, doesn't the definition of it kinda implies crazy people *on the internet*, specially tumblr? So I don't see how SJW's would have power to implement a law or something. Anyways you brought it up twice out of thin air when I didn't even talk about it, nor it was a part of the argument.
Anyways, on hiding religion, do you think a Jew, should have to take off his Kippah, even if it goes agaisnt their religion, at a job interview? (Not if it would be better for them today, but if in the society you want to live that should be necessary) And if the answer is yes I really don't know what to say.
Just to conclude, if you think people shouldn't be able to claim they are bearkins and demand service at restaurants in costumes, argue agaisnt that, not agaisnt religious freedom or people of different sexual orientations wanting equal treatment. |
### Human: CMV: Equal pay in sports for men and woman atheletes cannot be attained currently, due to economic factors associated with demand, not social injustice### Assistant: "I also think ladies have the ability to play all sports as good as men do, if not better"
Hate to break it to you, but they aren't even comparable.
The womens national teams from some of the top countries in soccer will almost always get beat by mens U-17 U-18 or U-19.
The US national womens team scrimmaged the U-17 boys in 2012 and were beat 8-2.
Other top countries had similar results, and this is just what I know from soccer.### Human: How does this disprove his statement though?
Edit: his statement being that women athletes get paid less because less people watch them### Assistant: It disproves the statement I quoted. How does it not?### Human: That's not what I asked.
I might be misunderstanding the purpose of this subreddit, but I thought you are supposed to provide an argument which counters the OPs point. If anything, your comment helps OPs main point.### Assistant: >counters
Changes... |
### Human: CMV: You should be allowed to use a device that records everything you see or hear, at all times.### Assistant: First, I don't think that the broad comparisons you draw between memory and artificial storage are as compelling as they might be. Just because you can remember something doesn't mean you can reproduce it. I know exactly what "highway to hell" sounds like, but I sure can't reproduce it. Maybe one person in a million could do a decent job; maybe one in a billion could do it perfectly from memory. But I can still see how, for example, a concert venue might want to stop people from easily and cheaply recording their stuff.
Or take people who work with classified data in government facilities. Everything has SOME risk, but we try to minimize it in all walks of life. Which sounds riskier: accepting the off chance that the one person in a million that can quickly and accurately memorize engineering drawings, say, or access codes would also be a criminal, pass security clearances, and work in such a facility? Or allowing every single person who has access to such data to record it instantly, permanently, and in such a fashion that allows flawless, infinite reproduction?
True, we have people with eidetic memories walking around, and in theory, that could be dangerous. But we have people who can break other people in half with two fingers walking around too; that doesn't mean we let everyone carry a gun everywhere all the time.### Human: >True, we have people with eidetic memories walking around
Maybe. Probably not.
No adult has ever been proven to have eidetic memory. So it's not really much of a threat.### Assistant: Also, people with better memory have been shown to be much more likely to have false memories.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Then how does this article explain the fact that we get better and better with practice when we recall memories like math equations, musical notes, and video game strategies? Genuinely curious. A link to the article would be interesting.### Human: Sounds like you get better at the act of recalling memories, not at recalling specific memories.### Assistant: But what about the substance of those memories? Namely, the math equation, the musical notes, the video game strategy? If they are being "corrupted" so to speak by being accessed and retrieved so many times, wouldn't it be irrelevant how good you are at retrieving it if the actual thing you're retrieving becomes more and more unreliable/pure?### Human: Sorry misunderstood your question, to be honest I guess I didn't even really read it, I thought you were talking about exercises to improve your ability to recall events.
From what I understand what you're asking about are a different type of memory called procedural memories, which are basically just habits which we learn. Think of it as muscle memory, however it does extend to other areas like arithmetic. As opposed to memories of events, which may or may not be re-written every time we access them. Both are stored or maintained in separate structures of the brain neither of which we fully understand. |
### Human: CMV: Democracy is a suboptimal system of government.### Assistant: > First-past-the-post is absurdly unrepresentative and it doesn't allow for real change. This creates inefficiencies when new and pressing issues need to be dealt with, and merely forces a regression to centrism whether or not it is the most prudent policy. Proportional representation, on the other hand, would create a messy coalition with little authority and would almost inevitably lead to infighting of some description. This would simply get in the way and make it tough for any legislation to be passed.
These seem like objections to certain forms or implementations of democracy, not democracy itself. Other systems, rather more efficient and fair, have been developed: single transferable vote, for example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI).
> I maintain that it is unreasonable to think that everyone's voice is equal. Although it may be non-PC to suggest it, the vote of a professor will generally be more rational than the vote of a poorly-educated worker. As the adage goes, democracy is a system where two fools can overrule a genius. Add in the spin and PR of modern politics and for most people elections simply become a lucky dip.
Again, this doesn't necessarily seem like a fundamental problem with democracy. First, the idea isn't that all votes should be equal because they are all equally intelligent or rational. The idea is that all votes should be equal because all people are subject to them. It's better to have the power to mess up your own life or not, as you choose, than to be forced to live well under tyranny. Do these choices have effects on others in a democracy? Of course, but their choices effect you as well. It may be theoretically better in terms of quality of choices to only have certain people vote, but the point isn't the quality of the choices; the point is that the power of choice itself is worth the cost. As to the adage "democracy is a system where two fools can overrule a genius", my answer is twofold. First, who's to say the genius has the best interests of all three of them in mind? Second, who's to say the fools cannot be convinced or, better, educated by the genius?
> Politicians are by nature mendacious, and there is little we could do to change that. This is the first main issue. The second is that politicians often fail to act in the country's best interests. Self interest is the overpowering factor in many of their decisions. As they seek reelection, they will notice a divergence between what is good for the country and what the electorate want to hear. They generally choose the latter.
These are problems, to be sure. But these problems are just as bad or, often, worse under pretty much any other system besides anarchy. At least with democracy, we have a chance to get rid of a bad leader. In most other systems, you're stuck with him/her for life, and their powers are vastly greater.### Human: > It's better to have the power to mess up your own life or not, as you choose, than to be forced to live well under tyranny.
Why is it better?
Also this might be based on your definition of tyranny, but non-democratic forms of government (e.g. despotism, monarchy, etc.) don't have to be tyrannical.
> Second, who's to say the fools cannot be convinced or, better, educated by the genius?
Real life experience says this. The American south and the climate change and evolution vs creation debates are the single greatest proof that humans will accept irrationality even in the face of proof, reasonable discourse, and their own eyes.### Assistant: > Why is it better?
Because freedom is more valuable than safety.
>Real life experience says this. The American south and the climate change and evolution vs creation debates are the single greatest proof that humans will accept irrationality even in the face of proof, reasonable discourse, and their own eyes.
No, real life experience suggests that this is true in some instances, some of which are temporary. It's better to win someone over with sound arguments and reason than to force them to comply with your wishes.### Human: > Because freedom is more valuable than safety.
This might just be a fundamental disagreement. Being "free" is not having 1/100,000,000th (for example) of a say in how a country is run. Being free to live your life the way you want and pursue happiness is not predicated on being able to choose who runs the country every X years (aside from the fact that in most representative democracies, your representative is far more dependent on where you live than your personal opinion). I would much rather live in a country governed by reason and logic by people who know what they're doing rather than vote for people who have to make populist decisions and spend half their term trying to get re-elected. You could be safe and free or unsafe and oppressed in both of those systems. Safety and freedom are not proportional to level of democracy.
> No, real life experience suggests that this is true in some instances, some of which are temporary.
Whether it's temporary is highly arguable. If democratic government A makes bad decisions of a large enough scope, the consequences will stick around when government B takes over. Things like environmental, energy or foreign policy don't reset after an election. If government A enacted disastrous policies on climate change or started a war, the effects of these decisions will be permanent or at best very difficult to reverse. Even worse, if government C alters the education system in a wrong way due to populist demand, the effects will be felt for as long as the children affected by that system are alive.
A good example of this is the [Canadian government's decision](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_2011_Census#Voluntary_long-form_survey_controversy) to make the most detailed version of the census voluntary. This was despite the objection of [every](http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/07/10/siddiqui_gutting_of_census_stirs_opposition_to_stephen_harper.html) [single](http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/07/15/axing_long_form_census_threatens_healthcare_improvements_doctors_warn.html) [authority](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dont-mess-with-census-statisticians-tell-tories/article1635031/), [other levels of government](http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Census+consensus+eludes+premiers+Several+scold+Harper/3369649/story.html) and [Statistics Canada itself](http://www.vancouversun.com/news/StatsCan+boss+reflecting+after+census+mess/3305387/story.html). Now Canada has no reliable census data past 2006. [The effects of this (fairly minor seeming) decision](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/2/what-happened-when-canada-stopped-counting-its-numbers.html) will haunt Canada for decades. The [reason this change](http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/statement-on-2011-census-1289664.htm) was made was because people didn't like filling out the long form census because it was too long. Just because a decision is popular doesn't mean it's the right one to make.
> It's better to win someone over with sound arguments and reason than to force them to comply with your wishes.
You might be able to catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but this doesn't extend to humans. If a group of humans are used to vinegar (or are told that they should want vinegar by vinegar salesmen), there is no amount of sound arguments about how honey is better that will sway them. They will **invent** rationale as to why honey is actually bad for them or why vinegar cures cancer. This is talking about a group people as a collective. A person might be reasonable, but people are dumb.
In short (and this might just be me) but I would much rather live in a well-managed rational despotism than a populist irrational democracy.### Assistant: > I would much rather live in a country governed by reason and logic by people who know what they're doing rather than vote for people who have to make populist decisions and spend half their term trying to get re-elected.
I don't think it's possible to live in a country governed by reason and logic unless it's a democracy. Establishing, say, a monarchy that satisfies those requirements may work temporarily. But power will corrupt the monarch, and probably sooner rather than later.
> Whether it's temporary is highly arguable.
I disagree. Literally any example of things improving in a democracy along rational guidelines means that it is, at least in some instances, temporary.
> If a group of humans are used to vinegar (or are told that they should want vinegar by vinegar salesmen), there is no amount of sound arguments about how honey is better that will sway them.
I don't think anyone is truly beyond rational discussion, except for a very small number of truly insane or incompetent people, who are such a small minority as to not seriously effect democracy.
> In short (and this might just be me) but I would much rather live in a well-managed rational despotism than a populist irrational democracy.
So would I, except for the fact that I think that a well-managed rational despotism is a contradiction in terms. It cannot exist, at least with humans. |
### Human: CMV: If it's wrong to say "Not all black people are criminals, but all white people live in fear of crime," then it should be wrong to say "Not all men rape, but all women live in fear of being raped."### Assistant: >However, I see the "All women live in fear of being raped" being passed around a lot, and I don't quite see the rationale behind it.
It's what we teach them. If white people live in constant fear of black people committing crimes, it's making erroneous normative assumptions based on race. In other words, that all black people are inclined towards criminality.
Now, if we treated rape the same way, you'd be right that there's some equivalence between the two statements, but we don't treat it the same way. We teach women to be on their guard. We encourage them to take self defense; to watch their drink; to go out in groups; to park in lit parking lots; to dress a certain way; to check the backseat of their car before getting in; to hold their keys 'wolverine style; and we show them 'how not to get raped' videos in health class (they're not called that but they're showed predominantly to girls and focus primarily on protective measures to avoid being 'taken advantage of' more than simply getting mugged on the street.)
So, yeah, most women live in fear of getting raped because we raise them to be fearful of it. We put the onus on them to avoid getting raped, and we frame it in a way where it's peculiar to women and men are their assailants.
No, these aren't right, but they're wrong for different reasons. There's absolutely socialization of white people to make those wrong assumptions about black people, but it's not something that's deliberately institutionalized anymore or even encouraged about it. At the very least, we don't usher white people into classrooms and, for example, make sure they are acutely aware of what can happen if they walk into the 'wrong neighborhood.' In contrast, we do formally introduce young girls and, eventually, women to broad protective measures to ensure they minimize the likelihood of getting raped, even in the most tenuous of ways (e.g., don't dress this way.)
And yes, some of it speaks to basic prudence and risk-minimization (such as traveling in groups), but we don't bombard young men with this advice on a regular basis once they hit 12 or 13 years old. They're presumptively non-victims who can care for themselves. If you raise people to believe this crime is something to be perpetrated exclusively against them, and thus they should take a very active part in remaining aware of the dangers surrounding them just walking down the street, they will absolutely have a heightened sense of that risk.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > In the real world, a white person is far more likely to be the victim of a crime by a white person than by an other-than-white person. Use of the word "white" in the phrase is incorrect and could very well be racist.
And before anyone brings up crime statistics, those statistics only show that black people make up a *disproportionate number per their total population.*
The crime statistics still show that white people are overwhelmingly the most offenders, which is obvious given that they make up the majority of the population.
(This is all referring to the U.S., of course).### Human: >And before anyone brings up crime statistics, those statistics only show that black people make up a disproportionate number per their total population.
You do realize that this is a significant and relevant thing, right? If a group is disproportionately predisposed to doing something, this means there is a correlation.
Say you have a country. Ethnic group A is 90% of the population, and Ethnic Group B is 10% of the population. Let's say you take a hate crime statistic. If both groups are responsible for hate crimes 50% of the time, that means Ethnic Group B has a horrendous predisposition to it and means that "racism" is more common in that group. This is one of the reasons the outlook SJWs have with their "prejudice+power" definition of racism is misleading. Assuming Ethnic Group B has less power in this country, it wouldn't matter. It would mean the hate crime threat from Ethnic Group B is percentage-wise enormous and presents a bigger "threat".### Assistant: > You do realize that this is a significant and relevant thing, right? If a group is disproportionately predisposed to doing something, this means there is a correlation.
The correlation is there because there's also a correlation between being black and being poor, which is a result of the shitty conditions they've had to endure in the US for the past several hundred years. It makes more sense to be afraid of poor people than black people.### Human: Not to mention that by perpetuating the idea that we should target black people because they commit more crimes we also increase the likelihood of finding them guilty of things. If Asians were targeted 8X more often for a month, Asian crime rates would spike. |
### Human: CMV: The United States Postal Service is amazing and should be expanding and becoming more customer oriented, not shrinking right now.### Assistant: > The USPS does everything better and cheaper than private competitors, and that's probably due to support from taxes.
Wrong. The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.
> If I ran the government, I'd expand the postal service to get into the shipping business.
Government intervention has already made them almost insolvent. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to “pre-pay” into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees. Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These “prepayments” are largely responsible for the USPS’s financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead – take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.### Human: > Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016 ... take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.
This proves my point, Congress is a bunch of idiots they made bad choices. Government shouldn't run a business, okay, but if run correctly, there's no reason USPS can't get a piece of online shopping shipping business. I'm a hardcore liberal. I stick with government for everything.
If I were dictator of America (which I think I should be), I'd listen to my advisors and make the post office solvent and profitable.### Assistant: Congress is not a bunch of idiots... the reason for these mandates against the USPS is because of lobbyists from UPS and FedEx.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Which they get paid for handsomely.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304778304576374081773084832 |
### Human: CMV: The pharmaceutical industry should be subject to the Hippocratic oath.### Assistant: >That means companies should not be allowed to neglect a disease because it has too few patients and will therefore not be profitable.
What metric do you think they should use, then? Research funding isn't infinite, so companies do have to decide which diseases they'll neglect.### Human: Ultimately all it really costs is effort and manpower. Now, in our society that may be managed through money, but that is not necessary and I therefore reject that paradigm. The medical branch should have access to all things necessary to act to the best of their ability, i.e. provide the best treatments and preventive actions as possible. That accessibility should be a collective effort of society.
Also I think the metric should be for instance a council of doctors and related scientists. I think profit is a rather unmoral, detached incentive for such a delicate topic. The aim should be: the best care. Now some of you might argue that the profit system is the way to get there, but I fail to see that.### Assistant: I think saying that "all it really costs is effort and manpower." is kind of underplaying how big of a deal those things are. You say that there are better ways to manage these resources than money, but could you propose one?
Even ignoring money, individuals have to dedicate years of their lives to obtaining an education that allows them to work on these drugs. How do we convince someone to make this kind of commitment without the incentive of money?
Further, I don't understand "best care" as a useful goal. Do you individually devote all of your resources to improving care? Perhaps you do, but I would presume that this is not the case and that it would be unreasonable to expect you to, or anyone else.### Human: Well, straight up alternatives are hard to formulate, but as I mentioned in another reply, I don't get the whole marketing thing for one. Mixing up medical purposes with profit motives seems wrong to me because in the end, there are resources not spent on research/production and I feel that is not necessary. The free market should be limited to products you freely choose to use. When it comes to illness, there's pretty much one way to go about it: the hospital.
About motivation: I really don't know what to say really. Are you getting paid to post that? What makes you get up in the morning? Is it truly money? I think that's rather poor. What would you want to do with money; that's the interesting question. And when it comes to that, I think we all want to see ourselves and our loved ones safe and sound. So cut the money and let's go do that.
Best care should be read as best reasonable care. Obviously it's no good managing to keep someone alive for a 1000 years if the rest of world has to starve. Whenever we start to look at what we really can do instead of what we can financially afford, these limits will naturally emerge.### Assistant: I partially agree with your first point. If a drug is popular because it's backed by a larger marketing budget than a competing and objectively better drug then I would have moral issues with that. That said, just because it can produce undesirable behavior in some cases doesn't mean that it's a completely nonviable system.
Second, I didn't mean to suggest that money is the only motivation in a person's life. But in a system where money is already a powerful motivator I don't think that removing it could possibly increase or even maintain quality of care without some alternative being introduced.
You say "best reasonable care" but I really don't think this is as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting it is. Perhaps I don't understand when you say these limits will naturally emerge. This is how I read it; in the current system a company says 'we could cure disease x but it would require y amount of resources so we won't even though it would be an objectively good thing for many people'. In your proposed system the company says 'we could cure disease x and so we will because it would be morally reprehensible not to.' If I've constructed some argument here that you don't actually support please correct me but I see a few flaws with this. First, the question of 'what we really can do' does not always have an obvious answer. Can we cure cancer? Certainly we are optimistic but it's largely not an answerable question. Money isn't poured into research because after a certain amount of dollars we know progress will be made, it's because the problem affects a large enough portion of people severely enough that despite the outcome of research being unknowable, we suspect it will be worth it.
Second, producing the best reasonable care for someone must come at the cost of worse care for someone else. Ten billion dollars spent looking for a cure for one disease is ten billion dollars not spent on another disease. You've suggested a panel of experts that could decide how available resources are distributed and while I think this might produce a system that is in some senses 'more fair' it would come at the cost of decreased total resources when compared to the capitalistic system.### Human: I don't mean to suggest that the free market in its entirety is a bad thing, especially not in historic context.
When I suggest that money is a poor motivator, I don't mean to suggest we even could 'remove' it. I rather think in terms of replacing, or better yet transforming. For example, you might have heard of the idea of a universal basic income; a guaranteed means for everyone to maintain a certain standard of life. This would still be monetary, but the role of money would be transformed.
I see how you construct the argument, but it's not what I'm trying to say. I think there are a couple of factors that are relevant here. 1. The real capacity of what we can do; the physical capacity of the planet/galaxy and the population. 2. The way we manage this capacity; currently freemarket capitalism. 3. The demand on 'the market'; the ill and people in need of treatment.
I feel there's a discrepancy between 1 and 2. You're making the exact opposite point from the same premises. So this is probably a difference in opinion. But considering for example planned obsolescence, I think it's really hard to hold up that capitalism is the most resource efficient. Basically it's like this: a consumer wants to be satisfied, but to be a profitable consumer, you need to stay needy which is the exact opposite of satisfied. A producer is useless to a satisfied consumer and hence we can't really expect producers to produce anything that truly satisfies. Obviously, it's kind of perverse to suggest that this is a representation of Big Pharma, but the free market dynamic between producer and consumer is, I think, not necessarily beneficial to heatlhcare.
By 'what we can really do' I didn't mean goals like 'we can cure cancer' or 'we can cure AIDS', but more practically, 'this is the amount of time we can spend on this research'. Like, right now I feel like it is in our hands, that is to say why is the cancer fund collecting in the streets? Can't we as a society allocate the resources necessary to it? How is a health issue a charity? Do you see what I'm trying to convey? |
### Human: CMV: Conspiracy theorists have an inflated self importance that causes them to think the government actually views them as a threat.### Assistant: Its not that they see the government targeting *themselves*, its that they believe the government is targeting *the entire public as a group*. The public is worthy as a threat and to be spied upon.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry -moose-, your post has been removed:
> Comment Rule 5\. "No 'low effort' posts. This includes comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes". Humor and affirmations of agreement contained within more substantial comments are still allowed." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5)### Human: It's totally lame that the rest of us don't get to see the comment. It's a teachable moment.### Assistant: You didn't miss much, and the poster deleted it anyway. |
### Human: No matter your ancestry, if you have never been a member of a certain culture, you have no right to claim it as your own. Saying you are (for example) "proud to be Irish" when you've never so much as been to Ireland and can't pronounce 'ceilidh' is as ridiculous as it is naive. CMV### Assistant: As an Irish person who has encountered the "plastic paddies" we all love to hate over here, let me offer an alternative perspective: Being Irish-American is itself a cultural identity that is quite distinct from Irishness (particularly modern Irishness) but also from other notions of American-ness. It's a hybrid culture that arose from people who had very little travelling across the ocean to an utterly new environment, bringing their personal histories and values with them, in order to start a new way of life based on this idea of the American Dream. That circumstance will inevitably lead to those people's kids having a mix of Irish and American values, and some particular values that come purely from being thought of as a minority in the society you grow up in. Not only that, but many of these people emigrated several generations ago, which means that the notions of cultural heritage passed down to younger generations is one that plain doesn't exist in the Irish Republic anymore - or at least, not to the same extent. But the fact that their ideas of Irishness are different than mine isn't to say that they're invalid, just that they're different. So while I would say that someone asserting that they are as Irish as the locals because their great-grandmother's goat came from Sligo and they have a drinking problem is a touch obnoxious, I fully accept being Irish-American as a legitimate cultural identity. Similarly, being German-American, Italian-American and literally any other "-American" you can think of is legitimate too, for the same reasons.### Human: I agree with you that all the "-American" identities are distinct in and of themselves and are perfectly valid, but they shouldn't be conflated with the cultures of their homelands. Tell a Boston Irish to live in Limerick for a year with no prep, and they're going to experience just as much culture shock as any other expat.### Assistant: Well then you really are arguing against an idea that I don't believe really exists. Most people who say they are "Irish" clearly do not mean by nationality or citizenship but by heritage. If you don't have a problem with people identifying as part of the group of "Whatever-American" is your only problem with the fact that they *say* "Irish" rather than "Irish-American"? That would seem unnecessary, as most American people discussing their ancestry understand that they are still American, despite being in a subgroup.### Human: >Most people who say they are "Irish" clearly do not mean by nationality or citizenship but by heritage.
My entire point is that people shouldn't be defining themselves by their heritage. Your bloodline means jack. The environment you grew up in, your habits, and your belief are what influence your identity, not an abstract association with a far-off country of origin.### Assistant: Unless you're the only *whatever*-American family in your area tho, that will tend to influence the environment you grow up in. As I replied to /u/serenity-bumblebee, I grew up in a heavily Irish American community, and although I am several generations removed from Ireland, it had a huge influence on my upbringing. However I will always feel more in common with Irish Americans from Boston than most people from Ireland. People really do come to the US and create their own, new cultures. Corned beef and cabbage, spaghetti and meatballs, chop suey, these dishes are all just as American as apple pie but they also represent a fusion between American culture and immigrant culture. |
### Human: CMV: People who've never struggled with an impulse can't attribute their lack of struggle to superior willpower### Assistant: The truth is, the concept of "willpower" is too narrow to be useful as most people really talk about it. Feeling temptation and then fighting past it is a losing strategy... and it leads to the paradoxical desire to expose yourself to temptation so that you can prove your strength, making yourself more likely to actually do something unhealthy or immoral as a result.
Instead, part of "willpower" is *avoiding temptation in the first place.* Building habits to keep yourself out of situations where you could be tempted is what actually works, so any meaningful conceptualization of the trait that causes someone to deal with temptation needs to include that.
This DOESN'T change the issue that not everyone is on equal ground to start with: some temptations are stronger for some people. I agree that's no reason to feel superior, and it's another reason to get away from the mindset that 'willpower' as you conceptualize it is a big deal. It doesn't work well and it's not that important.### Human: That's not willpower, that's planning.
When I was growing up, the family next door were baptist and heavily controlled their kids. Kept them away from everything that could corrupt them. No TV, no radio, strict toys, etc. The oldest girl was friends with my mom. When she moved away to go to college we found out that she got completely fucked up. Fell into drugs, prostitution, all kinds of things. Her upbringing didn't teach her how to deal with any of those things. So you may be in favor of planning to avoid temptation, it doesn't actually do much when you actually come face to face with it.### Assistant: That is someone else trying to limit your exposure. Planning is a form of willpower, if you have a drinking problem for example. Planning to not go to bars and avoid temptation is a strategy that involves willpower to continue avoiding the situation. It may be that the person knows that if they are in a bar they might not have the willpower to turn down a drink, so planning not to be in those situations and having alternatives ready to prevent them slipping into bad habits is the best application of their willpower. It is not easy to try and avoid temptation all the time. However, trying to nip it in the bud early is a strategy of using your willpower in the most effective way.
The example you describe has nothing to do with that at all.### Human: What you're talking about in addiction is called a trigger. And what you're talking about is planning to avoid triggers.### Assistant: Which takes "willpower" to stick to.### Human: The two aren't even in the same ballpark. Once an addiction cue has been received its like the difference between turning on your kitchen faucet and Niagara falls.### Assistant: As someone currently trying to beat an addiction (and as someone who at this point has not had much success.) I think you're right, although the other guy has good points too. It's definitely a situation where certain solutions can work better for certain people. For me, planning is bogus and at this point in recovery, would end up being a quasi-productive way to pass several minutes while I write out an itinerary or ponder what actions I'll take. Once I finish planning it'd be off to the races, with no consistent outcome. Maybe one day I'd stick to the plan I set for myself, and the next I might follow through with half or none, then I'd start thinking about being high. The most common scenario for me is I'll be in a good mental place and I'll have motivation to make plans, then when it's time to follow through, I'd most likely just skip the plan all together and get high. So, to come to some semblance of a point (because this post has basically become a vent)... What I desperately need, and what I've been doing my best to achieve, is healthy coping mechanisms, like meditation or reaching out to a sponsor or friend. I have a hard time even doing that. I'm sure a lot of addicts out there, through their drug use, developed the strong habit of being able to drop everything, no matter how important it seems, to score or get high. Where I'm at right now, my mindset changes QUICK. And planning just won't change that. Today I wanted to go look for jobs, I got 3 applications then emptied my bank account and started looking for a connect. Fast forward three hours and I'm still looking for a high... I'm ashamed, anxious, angry (no connects) and tired. I planned to be productive, I instead looked for a high. |
### Human: Spoilers do not have an expiry date. CMV.### Assistant: Is it everyone else's responsibility not to talk about spoilers online to not spoil them for you, or is it your own responsibility to look out for spoilers while you're online?### Human: In my opinion, both. It's your personal responsibility to avoid spoilers. But at the same time, it's everyone's responsibility to make sure their spoilers are able to be avoided (i.e. tag that shit).### Assistant: You can tag spoilers on Reddit, but what about on sites like Facebook or Twitter that don't have this feature?### Human: In those cases, I think an all-caps SPOILER WARNING at the top of the post is just fine. That said, I realize this doesn't really answer the question of the expiration date. Should facebook users have to give a warning before saying that Oedipus is a motherfucker? That's a much more nuanced question that I honestly don't have a good answer to.### Assistant: Putting a spoiler warning could be somewhat effective on Facebook, but on a site like Twitter where each post is only 140 characters it makes it almost impossible to warn another reader that your post contains spoilers without the eyes of the reader catching what comes after this warning.### Human: Another fair point. In keeping consistent with my principle, if you're in a public place where you can't effectively tag spoilers, don't post them. If you **really** need to, you can always put the text into an image, upload it, and put a spoiler warning before the link.### Assistant: This goes back to my main question of whether you think that the responsibility to avoid spoilers lies on the reader or the poster. Personally, I think that this is more of a responsibility of the reader to look out for and try to avoid spoilers as people have the freedom to post whatever they want (within reason) on their social media pages or discussion boards/forums. |
### Human: CMV: If websites want me to turn off adblock then they need to do something to convince me I should.### Assistant: > As in my case the only reason I DLed it and use it is because of the over the top ads not the regular ones
The only way you could be sure that a website has intrusive ads is to view them. If you're going to block ads on every website then you can't be certain that a website's ad is unobtrusive. You could send the webmaster an email to ask them to change the ads, maybe remove pop-up ads, etc.
If you visit a website multiple times then you're there for a reason - for the content. The website has convinced you to visit by providing you this content without asking for any payment. But you are denying the website revenue by blocking the ads on the website. It's not a hardship to click a button to enable adblock on a website that has annoying ads. You're definitely not visiting millions of websites, so you'll be able to get the ads under control fairy quickly. If every single person used adblock, the internet economy could not continue the way it has so far - you would end up having to pay $ for the same content you're enjoying for free.### Human: I agree with your first point but I don't think it is my responsibility to figure out which websites are being responsible. They should have to convince me. I shouldn't have to go through the FBI pop ad that locks your computer up until you shut down and go in safe mode etc, then block that one website and leave everything else open until it happens again.
I don't think the webmasters are as defenseless as you make them out to be either, I'm not positive about this but I'm fairly certain that if they can scan for adblock and make a message appear on their page asking me to disable it they could also kick me off their page or refuse me access just as easily. I'm willing for them to consider that and chance it because the backlash would be terrible for them, a few websites would go under because of this move and new websites that replace it would have to find a way to fix that problem and replace the trust that has been lost furthering my goal.### Assistant: > they could also kick me off their page or refuse me access just as easily
Content creators rely on their viewers sharing the content on social media to generate views, which leads to more revenues. Sure, you may have your adblock enabled, but maybe one of the people you share the content with doesn't. The creator would be limiting their own success by not allowing adblock users to view content. Those that do hide content from viewers who are using adblock typically have a large audience already. I haven't seen a single new/upcoming content creator hide their content - it doesn't do them any good.
You're the one with the position of power. The content creators rely on viewers; if they didn't have any, they wouldn't get an income from the content they're putting out for free. You, the viewer, do have a responsibility, whether you decide to accept it or not. If you want to see more of the content you're enjoying it's a good idea to disable adblock. If the ads on a particular website annoy you, it's remarkably easy to block them. And if you're afraid for your computer, use one of the many excellent and free anti-virus/malware programs out there that don't even care about your adblock.
One of my very favourite websites (not Reddit) has atrocious ads, and I do use adblock on it. But I'm aware that keeping the website up and running involves time and money, so I donate directly. I do it because I want more of that great content, and I want to support good creators, and good websites.### Human: Antivirus and malware don't protect you from malicious web pages that use valid loopholes to lock you into a web page until you pay them money.
I think we are a little off point here as I am not suggesting that I shouldn't have to turn adblock off, I'm suggesting that if websites want me to do it they need to give me incentive in the form of letting me know their adverts are reasonable without me having to find out on my own.### Assistant: You may find [this extension](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/trafficlight/cfnpidifppmenkapgihekkeednfoenal?hl=en) useful.
I do understand what you're saying. You want the content creator/webmaster to state clearly that there are no obtrusive or malicious ads on the website before you'd consider disabling adblocker. Well, the system is not perfect yet. You're still enjoying free content while denying the people who made it a few fractions of a penny in return. Wouldn't you rather engage with the content creator through e-mail or comments to raise the issue of the horrible ads? Letting them earn some money would make them more sympathetic to your cause, don't you think? They want more viewers, they'll make whatever changes they can if it gets them more viewers. And if they don't do anything about the ads after you've talked with them, send them a message and let them know you're blocking the ads on their website. Give them feedback.### Human: Thanks for the extension ifo.
I think I am engaging with them via adblocker. I'm sure if they use analytics they know how many people are visiting their sites with adblocker or not.
I don't think they are ignorant to the situation. Adblocker didn't exist a decade ago in part because ads were reasonable. I'm pretty sure they get the message already and they will either choose to change their ways or at least acknowledge the problem is rampant in the system as a whole and address it in some way.
You were right before when you said that I don't visit millions of web pages but my surfing habits are pretty extensive. A more realistic number might be 50-100 new websites per month that I visit, it's unrealistic to expect me to engage with 50 to 100 new webmasters every month.### Assistant: > it's unrealistic to expect me to engage with 50 to 100 new webmasters every month
There are a few things to take note of:
1) That's your decision. You have made the choice to visit the websites, so you could communicate with the webmasters. It may take time, but it's the only way to make sure that they know *why* you're using adblocker. When you say that they "get the message" by using analytics, you're assuming they know exactly why. It's possible that a visitor to the website could be against ads, no matter what. Or, like you, a visitor could be guarding against intrusive ads. Or perhaps the visitor is using their friend's computer and isn't even aware that they're blocking the ads on a site that they'd otherwise support. You get the idea... you're assuming that the webmaster has somehow divined your reason for blocking ads without feedback. It's also possible that they've received feedback about intrusive ads before, but it takes more than one (or a few) opinions to get someone to change their mind. There's inertia involved.
2) You're also assuming that all of the 50-100 new websites that you visit every month have intrusive ads. We've been through this one before. If you're blocking it, you can't know.### Human: 1) So it's my responsibility to make sure they get the point? If you were the content creator would you say the same thing and say it is the viewer's responsibility to inform you?
2) I also can't know if all hitchhikers are safe bets or not but I don't pick them all up and try them out one by one. (from what I hear most of them are nice if a little strange) Admittedly not a great analogy...it doesn't address enjoying content but it does address the onus of checking everything out.### Assistant: Your analogy is actually terrible. You're not in physical danger by disabling adblocker, so there's that.
If I were a creator, I'd welcome feedback. Actual engagement with the people who like the content I put out. It's like someone protesting the state of politics by not voting *and* also not writing to their representative bringing up the matter, all the while hoping for change. Feedback is important. You want change? Write to your rep. You want better ads? Write to the creator, give them feedback.### Human: I don't disagree with this stance because in an ideal world we'd have the time and resources to communicate with everyone more often because it would be better all around. But this is unrealistic to expect someone to create that kind of dialogue all the time.### Assistant: [Yeah, it's not ideal, but we should do whatever we can.](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan109075.html) Small steps... |
### Human: I don't believe subjective sports should be allowed at the Olympics, CMV.### Assistant: While I agree with you to a point, subjectivity has been an integral part of the modern games since their reinstatement (gymnastics is one of the original events in 1896) and subjectivity exists even in events where one might hope it wouldn't: Boxing--see 2012 and the Azerbaijan referee scandal; Basketball--recall the gold medal stolen from the Americans in 1972 by referee fiat; Track and field--see 1996 and Linford Christie's being disqualified for another runner's false start; even the women's Table Tennis finals in 2012 had its own referee scandals.
While some sports are less susceptible to referees' and judges' tampering, I'd argue that none is safe from it. And in the end, the spirit of the games, ultimately, is competition and camaraderie and even some of the more subjectively scored sports offer this in spades.
Incidentally, from 1918 to 1948, they even gave out Olympic medals in [non-sports competitions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_competitions_at_the_Olympic_Games) such as sculpture, literature, and architecture. This is the very epitome of subjectivity.### Human: &#8710;
With modern tech, most of those errors in "objective sports" can be removed, and yes, they aren't perfect. I didn't know about the non sports stuff, and whilst I don't agree that it's in the spirit of the ancient Olympics, you have at the least, softened my view.### Assistant: You may be right about it not being in the spirit of the ancient Olympic games specifically, but if it gives you any peace of mind, its not as if the ancient greeks would be rolling over in their graves about subjective sports at the Olympics. I remember reading that the other three Pan Hellenic games (almost equally prestigious as the Olympics) had official events for poetry, music, and other arts.
So while I do actually agree with the way you feel about the spirit of the Olympics, I thought I'd mention it### Human: &#8710; I'll pay that. I didn't know the other pan hellenics had events for the arts.
EDIT: Words, words words for the delta bot. hopefully this is enough. I still don't agree but subjective stuff is now tolerable.### Assistant: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV: Biblical scholars should not smugly dismiss the Christ Myth Theory because the evidence for a historical Christ is very weak### Assistant: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/how_much_evidence_is_there_for_a_historical_jesus/chf3t4j?context=3
Actual historians see the evidence as fairly strong, and note that they come from multiple independent sources.
>But strictly speaking, we have no archaeological evidence for any upper-class Jew from the 20s CE either. Nor do we have more written evidence for Pontius Pilate, who is a Roman aristocrat in charge of a major province, than we do for Jesus [We do have epigraphic evidence for Pontius, in the form of the Pilate Stone, an archaeological find that bears his name. However, there is no reason to expect any similar archaeological evidence for a figure like Jesus].
The amount of evidence is normal, and expected.
>There are claims by mythicists that this passage in Tacitus is an interpolation, but there is no evidence for this and almost no serious classicist supports it.
The quote by Tacitus isn't widely held to be modified.
>So we have Mark, written around 70AD, then we have Matthew and Luke, based in large degree upon Mark, written probably in the 80-85 period. And yet Matthew and Luke share common material not found in Mark, which is typically referred to as Q (from quelle, German for ‘source’), besides material distinct to Matthew (M) and Luke (L), so you have in fact 4 likely documentary sources. Plus you have John written in the 80s or 90s AD, an independent source from the other canonical gospels.
>So you have four canonical gospels drawn from ostensibly 5 source texts, all dated within 40-50 years of Jesus’ death. This is within living oral memory, and probably their composition represents the transition within early Christian communities from those who had eyewitness testimony to a third generation that was beginning to have no access to such testimony.
The biblical evidence, from independent sources, is within oral memory, when people at the time would be alive.
>Pliny the Younger, writing in 112 AD, letters 10.96-97, discusses the issue of Christians gathering together, illegally. He knows a few facts about early Christian practice, and so by the early second century we know that Christians exist and believe in a Christ figure. They offer some form of worship to him. The most famous of the two letters between Pliny and Trajan can be read online here[2]
We also have this source on the worship of Christ.
That meets normal historical standards, that there was a man named jesus active in the 30-40s who started being documented around the 50s-60s.
Your error is that you're relying on crappy historians who aren't very good at judging sources. Tacitus is fairly trusted, there are other sources, and historians don't generally believe in historical conspiracies.### Human: > So we have Mark, written around 70AD, then we have Matthew and Luke, based in large degree upon Mark, written probably in the 80-85 period. And yet Matthew and Luke share common material not found in Mark, which is typically referred to as Q (from quelle, German for ‘source’), besides material distinct to Matthew (M) and Luke (L), so you have in fact 4 likely documentary sources. Plus you have John written in the 80s or 90s AD, an independent source from the other canonical gospels.
> So you have four canonical gospels drawn from ostensibly 5 source texts, all dated within 40-50 years of Jesus’ death. This is within living oral memory, and probably their composition represents the transition within early Christian communities from those who had eyewitness testimony to a third generation that was beginning to have no access to such testimony.
There's also [pretty major](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Gospels) [contradictions](http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html) in all four about both theological and factual points.
- Jesus' genealogy is different (Matthew and Luke diverge as soon as you get to Jesus' grandpa. Or.. adopted grandpa).
- "[He who is not with me is against me.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:30;&version=NASB)" Or... depending on which gospel, "[He who is not against us is for us](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:40;&version=NASB)."
- Jesus was born of a virgin... if you only read Matthew and Luke. The others don't mention it, which would kind of be like a Harry Potter novel not mentioning Hogwarts and wizardy. (Also, why are Matthew and Luke tracing Jesus' paternal genealogy if Joseph wasn't his biological father?)
- The scene of the Resurrection (the most important event in Christianity) is all over the place. In Matthew, two women were trying to figure out how they were going to get the tomb open when a violent earthquake opened the door and an angel was sitting on the tomb door that just rolled away. In Mark, three women were there and the tomb was open when they got there with one angel sitting inside. In Luke there were at least five women and two angels. In John, there was only one woman there, and she found the tomb empty (0 angels).
Point being that there's some overlap, but there's also some pretty black and white objective discrepancies on some of the most important scenes of the gospels that suggest we might not want to include them in "five independent source texts."### Assistant: The geneology thing sounds like an issue, Jesus saying slightly different phrases doesn't sound like an issue, different authors not mentioning different miracles doesn't sound like an issue, the resurrection thing may be an issue.
Black and white objective discrepancies are actually good. If people all say the same thing they're probably coordinating. If they say different things that means they relied on different sources and tales to make their stories.### Human: The virgin birth isn't just a miracle though... It's one of the central tenants of Christianity. The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus was fulfilling this prophecy in Isaiah 7:
>13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
It's not Jesus providing booze at a wedding; it's the entire justification for why people should listen to him in the first place.
> Black and white objective discrepancies are actually good. If people all say the same thing they're probably coordinating.
That.... is pretty weak sauce. Try making that argument in a trial when you're trying to explain why 4 different eye witnesses are contradicting each other, and why you should believe the things in common that they have to say.
"So one witness believes the defendant had a beard, was wearing a white suit, and had a tommy gun, one thinks he was completely shaven, was wearing a scuba suit and waiving a sword, one thinks he had Elvis' hair and was dressed in a hula skirt, and one thinks he was wearing an American Indian headdress. *But they all agree* that he was the bank robber, and they're clearly not coordinating to make it up, so you should believe them."### Assistant: >The virgin birth isn't just a miracle though... It's one of the central tenants of Christianity. The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus was fulfilling this prophecy in Isaiah 7:
Was it the central tenant of all of the gospel writers though, that is the issue. They don't all necessary have to had cared about such issues, or be especially old testament minded.
>That.... is pretty weak sauce. Try making that argument in a trial when you're trying to explain why 4 different eye witnesses are contradicting each other, and why you should believe the things in common that they have to say.
>"So one witness believes the defendant had a beard, was wearing a white suit, and had a tommy gun, one thinks he was completely shaven, was wearing a scuba suit and waiving a sword, one thinks he had Elvis' hair and was dressed in a hula skirt, and one thinks he was wearing an American Indian headdress. But they all agree that he was the bank robber, and they're clearly not coordinating to make it up, so you should believe them."
We're reading passages by people. It's like reading several different passages about a bank robber.
Passage one. "The man strode confidently down the bank shooting people." Passage two. "The man and his companions grabbed what wealth they could from the crying people, shooting any who opposed them." Passage three. "The man ordered his wife, named Agatha, to shoot any who opposed his rampage." Passage four. "Agathar dealt out justice to the wicked keepers of wealth, slaying all who opposed her enrichment."
Different people focus on different things. Unless the details are actually contradictory you expect different people to see different elements.### Human: > They don't all necessary have to had cared about such issues, or be especially old testament minded.
They were jews... pretty religiously minded ones at that. How could they be anything but Old Testament minded?
> Different people focus on different things. Unless the details are actually contradictory you expect different people to see different elements.
That's why I focused on the contradictions in the most important part of the story. "There were two robbers, and they used C4 to blow open the vault!" "No, there were three, and the vault was open when they came in! One manager was already in there." "No, there were at least five! And the manager and the assistant manager were in the vault!" "No, there was only one robber, and no one was in the vault. Also, a bunch of zombies came out of other bank vaults later that day, but the newspapers won't report that."
Without further evidence, I'm going to say that none of those witnesses are credible.### Assistant: >They were jews... pretty religiously minded ones at that. How could they be anything but Old Testament minded?
Since historians generally agree that a number of the gospels were written by unknown authors, we don't know all their priorities and interests.
>That's why I focused on the contradictions in the most important part of the story. "There were two robbers, and they used C4 to blow open the vault!" "No, there were three, and the vault was open when they came in! One manager was already in there." "No, there were at least five! And the manager and the assistant manager were in the vault!" "No, there was only one robber, and no one was in the vault. Also, a bunch of zombies came out of other bank vaults later that day, but the newspapers won't report that."
It's more like "The two robbers used C4 to blow open the vault."
"The three robbers walked into the open vault and saw the manager."
"The five robbers saw the splattered remains of the manager and the assistant manager."
"The robber saw the manager rise from the dead to attack him, and fled the zombie."
None of the passages say "Two, and only two and no more entered the tomb" to my knowledge. Small variations in who you focus on are normal.### Human: >It's more like "The two robbers used C4 to blow open the vault."
>"The three robbers walked into the open vault and saw the manager."
Timing's wrong. In one gospel, they *see* the earthquake and the tomb seal roll. In the other, there's no earthquake and the door's open when they get there.
> "Two, and only two and no more entered the tomb" to my knowledge.
No one writes like that. If I asked you "who did you go to the movie with?" You wouldn't reply "Jerry and Kramer, and only Jerry and Kramer, no one else."
The gospels list names, though, and they list some different names. "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." (Matthew). "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." (Mark). " "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles." (Luke). John only mentions Magdalene. Sometimes there's an angel there who has a conversation with them, sometimes two, sometimes it's empty. Sometimes the women run back to the apostles to tell them what happened, sometimes "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."### Assistant: >In one gospel, they see the earthquake and the tomb seal roll. In the other, there's no earthquake and the door's open when they get there.
The gospel states that there is no earthquake? The gospel states that the angels opening the door did so at the same time as the woman's arrival?
>No one writes like that. If I asked you "who did you go to the movie with?" You wouldn't reply "Jerry and Kramer, and only Jerry and Kramer, no one else."
I might reply "Some friends." Or I might reply with whoever I spent most time with, or all of them, or all the ones you'd know.
>Sometimes the women run back to the apostles to tell them what happened, sometimes "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."
And it says they never told anyone about this ever?
Minor quirks in reporting aren't an especially large issue.### Human: It leaves out the earthquake and radiant angel, which I think would be pretty hard to miss. Your other comments make it seem pretty obvious that you haven't read the relevant texts, which makes this conversation kind if pointless.### Assistant: > It leaves out the earthquake and radiant angel, which I think would be pretty hard to miss.
Not all would see them as important. Your arguments seem based on vague ideas of what should be and could be, not actual factual differences between the gospels.
Your other comments make it seem pretty obvious that you haven't read the relevant texts, which makes this conversation kind if pointless.
I've read the texts, and a number of books on them.### Human: Yes... The earthquake that gave them access to the tomb and the angels on top just weren't important enough to make it in...### Assistant: Sarcasm is pointless. Ancient documents weren't meant to be comprehensive, they tended to be written for a point. Simply saying sarcastically that they had to include something that's important to you isn't a historical argument.### Human: And yet brushing off an earthquake, appearances by angels explaining what was going on, and the subjects of the story as well as what the subjects did as "something that might not have been important to the story teller" is a historical argument.### Assistant: A historical argument would be made by actual historians using actual historical evidence. Your musings and feelings about how history should be don't mean much. |
### Human: CMV: Bernie Sanders has no chance in the overall election### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: That's very convincing. After doing some more research, I've decided I'm almost certainly not voting Clinton. How would you say that Biden stacks up as far as voting history and campaign sources?### Assistant: Biden is not a declared candidate so why would you worry about him? There are many, many, many good people who could be running for the Democratic nomination. Some perhaps even better than Bernie or Biden or even JFK, etc.### Human: I dont know much about the other democratic nominees besides Sanders and Clinton. What are your opinions of the others running?### Assistant: I'd be happy voting for Jim Webb. Lincoln Chaffee and Martin O'Malley... I dunno something seems weird about them. I didn't know Lawrence Lessig had thrown in but I would certainly be interested to see his performance on the debate stage. I bet he could hold his own with Sanders. I expect Sanders to dominate the debates.### Human: Are you at all afraid that the debates will be constructed to not allow Bernie to stand out? It seems pretty easy to nerf a debater if you know their style, and would prefer someone you've been working with in backrooms for 3 decades.### Assistant: Bernie has not allowed himself to be handled in standard ways as of yet, I'm not sure why he'd start next week... |
### Human: CMV: Honoring [living] American soldiers ignores the reality of war and glorifies the endless wars in which America engages.### Assistant: Honoring those who serve has nothing to do with what you're saying. They don't choose who, when, where, or why we fight, they just go fight. I honor the troops and curse the politicians who keep them engaged in combat of one kind or another.### Human: So by that logic any soldier in any army (Nazi, North Korea, Vietnamese) is as honorable because they are just following orders and being brave.### Assistant: Absolutely. The German regular army wasn't tried (for the most part) in neuremburg. Only those who participated in war crimes. Did they fight for a bad cause? Absolutely yes they did. But so (in my opinion) are our troops in the middle east. Doesn't make them bad people or less honorable. They don't make those choices. the only choices they make are whether or not to conduct themselves with honor and international law when it comes to war. If a soldier commits a war crime then that's obviously a difference. But that's rare compared to the hundreds of thousands who don't every day.### Human: I agree.
However most people would say that people who fight for these kind of regimes are despicable and empower their nations to commit atrocities.
I personally find the blanket support the troops rhetoric to be a shortcut around thinking critically about the militarized actions. It also serves the purpose of making the detractors of a war appear unpatriotic (per Goerrings quote).### Assistant: Ok, now YOU I can agree with on this. I'm not saying blanket statements here. When I say support the troops I guess it does sound like that though. What I mean I support the people on the ground making the best of bad situations. I don't feel the "enemy" in the middle east is even "bad". Their leaders are I would say but I would say our politicians who are lead by their ears by heartless corporations and financial spread sheets are as well.
I watched Restrepo and it's "sequel" and some of the soldiers I found their attitude reprehensive. They admit hating the locals. I can see why I suppose but the locals mostly didn't ask us for the help we are giving. Some of the soldiers however admitted to just being there and fighting for the guy to their right/left.
So when I say "support the troops" I realize, just like civilians, there are bad people in uniform, and good or bad, I disagree with the war in Iraq and our prolonged presence in the middle east as a whole. But Cpl Jones didn't make those decisions, he signed up for whatever his reasons are and was assigned a posting in the Middle East. |
### Human: I believe the notion of anarchy being desirable is silly, CMV### Assistant: >But if there is no entity imbued with the right to use force, does this not imply that there is no entity with the right to forcefully stop those without the right to use force from using it?
Anarchism does not imply pathological pacifism. Neoliberals calling themselves anarchists like to tout the "Non Aggression Principle" which borders on pathological but anarchists generally (and historically) don't have any such doctrine. If someone is trying to harm or to subordinate you or your community, coercive measures may be the most appropriate response.
>In other words, whats to keep some asshole stranger from punching me in the face if there are no police and I am neither strong enough to defend myself nor rich enough to pay others to defend me?
Your community, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. It may or may not be formalized in some way. Paying people for defence is the territory of ancappery again, not anarchism.
It's worth pointing out that the police are not primarily there for public safety, which has been [established legally](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0) (at least in the US), [bloody history of popular movements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers'_Day#History) aside. The primary function of the police is to maintain class control and enforce private property relations. They do other things, but "Protect and Serve" is still just the winner of a catchy slogan contest from BEAT magazine.
>Another argument for the immorality of the state seems to be that it enforces property (e.g. land) rights. It is said that the state must use force in order to enforce the property rights of the citizens, and that the citizens only have property in the first place because it was taken by force from the "commons". And since force was used to obtain the property originally, the most moral and proper path would be for everyone to give up all property.
I've never heard that argument posed this way. Can you elaborate?
The argument I'm familiar with is that those labor relations and property relations are wrong and immoral presently, regardless of how they were originally put in place.
>Some anarchists seem to say that there would still be a notion of personal property, but that it can only rightly be for those possessions that you use or occupy regularly. For example, some farmland you own that is 50 miles from your house, and that you rarely go to, can't be rightfully yours to hire people to work on.
Most would propose that it can be rightfully yours to work on, but not to rent other people to work for you, because that means you are subjugating workers and extracting profits from someone else's labor. All the talk about absentee ownership is shorthand for some sort of [usufruct](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct) -- rights to occupancy and use.
>I don't really get this one at all, and especially the caveat. Who in their right mind would think its desirable to dispense with property rights?
Socialists, generally. People who think that those who work the mills ought to run them. The people who brought you labor laws, safety regulations, [the eight hour day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair), weekends, minimum wage -- hell, the whole modern concept of the social contract basically started with people like [Otto von Bismarck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Germany) bargaining with socialists to keep them off his back.
It's an idea as American as apple pie. We had the [Lowell Mill Girls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls) -- daughters of farmers forced into wage slavery within the capitalist system. Anticapitalism was so obvious and commonplace about a hundred fifty years ago that even Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party expressed that the only principled difference between wage labor and chattel slavery was that the former might be temporary.
>So there is now no recourse for me (except using whatever force I can muster myself) if someone moves into my house while I'm away for the day.
No, that'd be kind of silly.
First of all, [private property](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Socialist_perspectives) refers to something pretty specific within a system of generalized wage labor. When anticapitalists talk about private property they're generally referring to what's called the "[means of production](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production)" or, in other words, the land, equipment, tools and common resources necessary to produce stuff.
The issue with real estate is rent seeking. If I own an apartment complex, the residents may have to dig in the salt mines all day while I can simply extract their wages for basically nothing and live a life of luxury.
I don't think anyone's suggested that going out to get a jug of milk means your home becomes fair game for random squatting.
>What defines "regular use"?
I'm not sure. I know I regularly use my shoes and don't regularly use yours. If people say they regularly use something, I tend to take their word for it. Again, some people might choose to formalize this, if it's a big issue.
>What defines that the property is "rightly" mine anyway if there is no entity to enforce that right other than myself?
Do you have trouble distinguishing what rightly belongs to your friends and family? I think the intention is clear without drafting a statute.
>Can anything really be said to be a "right" if I have to do all the enforcing of it myself?
Rights are conferred and respected but rarely enforced. When was the last time someone had to enforce your right to freedom of association?
Furthermore, property is an aberration among other rights, because it's the only one that's a right of exclusion. If I can say something, that doesn't take away your right to say something. If I own something then, by definition, you can't.
Furtherfurthermore, what says you have to do everything yourself? A society can have rules and organization without having rulers.
>Since the nature of anarchy permits no concentration of force that is controlled by society at large, there is nothing to prevent a rogue entity from instituting their own state to control that society for itself.
I don't know anything about the nature of it that proscribes using force. That said, anarchists are just really bad at it. I think, somewhat to their credit, building massive war machines is not among their talents.
However, you can apply the same argument for parliamentary democracy. If it's a law of nature that the peaceful and creative are clubbed into submission by the brutal and dumb, you could say that parliamentary systems, where the public has at least *some* limited influence on policy, should never have happened.
______________
Here's some questions from something like a short litmus test for whether you may be harboring some anarchist views. It's explained [here](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you).
- If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
- Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?
- Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
Basically, it comes down the belief that all authority has to justify itself -- and if it fails to do so, it shouldn't be there in the first place.### Human: > > In other words, whats to keep some asshole stranger from punching me in the face if there are no police and I am neither strong enough to defend myself nor rich enough to pay others to defend me?
>
> Your community, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. It may or may not be formalized in some way.
If it is sufficiently formalized, then it is basically a state.
Anarchism is based on a very solid idea, which is, as you wrote:
> Basically, it comes down the belief that all authority has to justify itself -- and if it fails to do so, it shouldn't be there in the first place.
The problems with anarchism start at the point where its adherents decide to unthinkingly reject **everything** that has to do with a state, and then subsequently reinvent the state to fix the problems created by this rejection.### Assistant: > If it is sufficiently formalized, then it is basically a state.
A state is a set of permanent bureaucratic institutions with coercive authority over society. It means that there is some sort of governing class and a class of governed people. It means (at best) career politicians, borders, national boundaries. If there is no distinction between 'the people' and 'the government' because the system in place is participatory and horizontal, with decisions passed from down low to up high (in the sense of some confederation or cooperating group of communities), rather than the other way around, there is no state. Whether there's a government is kind of a semantics argument.
>The problems with anarchism start at the point where its adherents decide to unthinkingly reject everything that has to do with a state, and then subsequently reinvent the state to fix the problems created by this rejection.
What are some of these problems? You're concerned with angry mobs?### Human: > A state is a set of permanent bureaucratic institutions with coercive authority over society.
More or less. In any case, this definition applies to a sufficiently formalized, self-organized community. A self-organized community is as likely as a state to coerce individual members. Think of the typical small conservative village community and how it would traditionally react to one of its members being homosexual. It's not pretty, and it doesn't make one bit of difference to the victim that you prefer not to call it a state.
> > The problems with anarchism start at the point where its adherents decide to unthinkingly reject everything that has to do with a state, and then subsequently reinvent the state to fix the problems created by this rejection.
> What are some of these problems? You're concerned with angry mobs?
No, I'm concerned with proper economic policy. There are plenty of prisoner's-dilemma type situations that can arise. In economics, the most famous one is the paradox of thrift. It helps to have a state which can act countercylically because it is not subject to the same economic constraints as everybody else.### Assistant: Can't be any help there, sorry -- not familiar with the concepts.
If you want to, you could probably start a discussion over it with someone in /r/anarchy101 or /r/DebateAnarchism though. |
### Human: CMV:Nobody has ever been abducted by an alien, ever.### Assistant: Ok... you can argue against the evidence, but you can't argue against lack of evidence. In other words, you can't positively prove that aliens don't exist and aren't kidnapping people absolutely... even though your argument is strong based on the odds alone.### Human: > you can't positively prove that aliens don't exist and aren't kidnapping people absolutely.
You can't really positively prove anything about the world. There are entire fields of philosophy dealing with the problem of knowledge. In any practical sense the proposition that aliens are abducting people, or really have ever abducted people, is such a fantastic one, that person advancing the proposition really bears the full burden on supporting it. Doubting that aliens are abducting people when there is absolutely no credible evidence to support it shouldn't really require any special mental gymnastics.### Assistant: > You can't really positively prove anything about the world.
That's a ridiculous extreme.
The idea that aliens exist at all hasn't been proven or disproven (and probably can't be disproven given the vastness of space) so you can't ALSO claim that they are or aren't doing certain things.### Human: > That's a ridiculous extreme.
Actually no. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification), and especially [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction), and [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat).
If you're falling back on some sort of certainty being the standard then even very simple propositions like "I am typing a sentence on this keyboard" become problematic to "prove."
But we don't, and cannot, operate in a world where "knowledge" or what we think of as knowledge acts like that as a practical instead of a philosophical matter. I can't say with philosophical certainty that if I step off of a high bridge that I won't float down to the water below like a feather. I should nevertheless be be careful in high places.
Nobody can "prove" that all subatomic particles aren't being carried by very tiny faeries that we have no way of detecting. Nobody can prove that my house isn't riddled with supernatural beings. Nor can anyone "prove" (right now) that alien life exists or not (although most people who are familiar with just how vast the universe is will concede that it probably exists somewhere). And no one can "prove" whether or not highly advanced civilizations are visiting the earth from thousands and millions of light year away and abducting people to perform experiments on them.
But one of those propositions is not like the others. One of these propositions (alien life exists somewhere) is one that comports with other propositions about what we (think we) know about the world and universe at large. The other three are fantastic claims that go against the weight of what we (think we) do know about the world and universe. As a practical matter, those sorts of propositions can be rejected outright unless there is very, very good evidence to suggest they are true.
That is, even though we can't know those things with certainty, in a practical sense you can "know" that they aren't true.### Assistant: Yes, I'm familiar with the absolute truth that we can't know anything of the external world and also how useless that is in real conversation.
It's a waste of time to constantly say "but you can't know the iron will burn if you touch it" when in practice we totally can.
I believe we have enough lack of evidence to conclusively say that alien abductions are extremely unlikely. I also believe there has never been a reported alien abduction.
However, that's different than saying there are definitely no aliens and no alien abductions. That particular statement doesn't meet my threshhold of proof. |
### Human: CMV: Lightsabre duels will almost always end with both parties dead (assuming equal skill)### Assistant: Lightsabers are actually considerably less lethal than a normal sword; swords kill through infecting an open wound most often, or by causing massive blood loss. Lightsabers cauterize any wound instantly, making something like losing an arm a lot less lethal when done by a lightsaber. To kill with a lightsaber, you have to cut the center of mass or head.
Another x-factor is The Force; A lot of otherwise lethal strikes can be staved off by manipulating reality subtly during a lightsaber duel, either by propelling yourself 15 feet through the air with a jump, causing your opponent's hand to twitch wrong, or any number of things.### Human: You're right you gotta cut the torso or head, but even that can be done from any angle with little power. As long as your opponents lightsaber is striking you and not blocking you can swipe at anything you can reach.
As for the force, yes that adds an element of skill akin to repostes in regular fencing, and I never really thought about that.
However, I'm gonna cheat a little and say that these are two equally skilled swordsmen fighting and not jedi.### Assistant: Well, then sure, they'd probably cut themselves in half because expert swordsmen are expecting weight on their blade, and all their training with blades that are made of matter would cause them to fumble in terrible (but possibly hilarious) ways that will end badly for them.### Human: ∆ I'll give you a delta because I didn't really think of the complexity the force adds to a jedi duel, and i had to cheat :P.
What about if they were fully trained in lightsabre techniques? I feel like the only strategy would be to hold it out as far as possible and try and slice eachothers fingers off.### Assistant: Look up saber bouts in fencing. The way the rules play out, any hit above the waist is a valid hit. It doesn't matter what part of the blade you hit with, much like a lightsaber. |
### Human: CMV: CMV: Most young men who work hard building a career are driven by two main motivations: Wanting to be loved by a woman, and not thought of as a loser by society.### Assistant: I think you're downplaying the draw of having a lot of money/things. I'll be the first to admit I like having money. I like watching my portfolio grow. I like being able to have nice things and not worry too much about the budget for the month. In the absence of a woman or the view of others, that would still be true.### Human: Money and social value are inseparable as money is useless without the social value that it entails.
I would argue that having nice things and not having to worry about *not* having things is inextricably tied to social value and the thoughts of others. i.e, I would have no desire for a nice car if all I wanted was to get from A-B and there was no social value to having that vehicle.
If work was not about what is socially valuable (as determined by a given currency) and simply about meeting my needs (transport, food, self-maintenance) then I would have no reason to build or develop a career so long as I could meet my needs.
It's pretty clear that socially successful people cannot be successful unless they care about being so, which also means they care about what the definition of 'success' entails socially.### Assistant: > I would have no desire for a nice car if all I wanted was to get from A-B and there was no social value to having that vehicle.
Have you ever had a nice car? There is absolutely some appeal to a nice, reliable, comfortable car besides caring what the people outside think about it. Comfortable seats, smooth ride, good stereo, nice nav system. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about it. My car is for me.
> If work was not about what is socially valuable
Yes, your pay is largely determined by the value of your work, but that's not about what society thinks of your "image". It's about how much they're willing to pay for your work, which they NEED.### Human: > There is absolutely some appeal to a nice, reliable, comfortable car besides caring what the people outside think about it.
Not if you're concern is the need of getting from A to B. If you genuinely like nice cars, and really want to get one just for the sake of having the car without regard for what anyone else thinks, then you aren't working to build a career, your working to get your dream car.
It follows that any work you do *for the money*, is something you are doing *primarly* as a means to be able to attain that which is socially valuable - the comforts or caveats that you enjoy personally as a result of that is a secondary consequence.
>Yes, your pay is largely determined by the value of your work, but that's not about what society thinks of your "image". It's about how much they're willing to pay for your work, which they NEED.
Aside from the fact that being able to secure work is most definately tied to your self image and how you present yourself (why else do we have CVs, resumes and interviews?) I don't see how this relates to the original point - We're interested in why someone would build a career, not why an employer employs someone.
Having a rare ability that is valued highly socially may mean you'll be paid highly for it, but once again, we are questioning the motivation of the worker - If they are doing it for the money, then it is fundamentally because they care about the social value that money will provide for them. If they are doing it for a particular *thing*, then they have no reason to develop that career once they have the thing they are after.
The only instance where people build a career for the sheer *sake* of building a career is ironically when it's not about the money at all - they do it because it is something they believe in and enjoy, and it is genuinely an experience that makes them grow as a person. But *those* individuals are far and few in between - The majority of people who work at careers do it so they aren't 'losers' (i.e. do it to attain social value through the money they earn).
I have still yet to read an argument here that makes a view changing point against /u/Incredulous_Cormier original post.### Assistant: > It follows that any work you do for the money, is something you are doing primarly as a means to be able to attain that which is socially valuable
No, it's not because it's "socially" valuable. It's because it's valuable to ME. It's no different than going to get some McNuggets. I'm not eating McNuggets because society says they're delicious and will make me look cool. I'm eating them because I, personally, love them. I make money so I can buy more McNuggets, because they make ME happy. They would make me happy if no one ever knew I was eating them.### Human: If you're entire purpose for building a career was for the specific goal of having McNuggets whenever you wanted to, I would agree with you.
But you are not sitting at work, with the *particular and specific* goal, of earning money *to* eat McNuggets.
The McNuggets come as a secondary consequence of you *working for money*. When you work for money, you are working for a piece of money that is a measure of **social value**; that you can use to exchange and get what you want *from someone else*. That is, instead of devoting your time and attention to making your *own* McNuggets (because you love them so much), you are working to get something (money) that someone else wants, and exchanging it for something (Mc Nuggets) that someone else has, that *you* want.
OP's original post is confusing as 'being a loser' is the situation people find themselves in when they can't make that exchange (due to a lack of money).
The point is, *unless* you are working with a specific goal of achieving something for yourself in mind, you are working for the explicit purpose of social value.### Assistant: > The point is, unless you are working with a specific goal of achieving something for yourself in mind
And my point is that I am. Most of us are. I am working with the specific goal of buying a new house, of buying a nice car. Not for anyone else. Just for me.
The fact that I'm using currency to do that does not mean that I'm doing it to be popular and gain society's approval. It means that I live in an organized economy and that's how we exchange goods and services. If there was a job out there where I could just work in exchange for a free car and house, I'd just do that.### Human: That's great - and to be clear there is nothing wrong with that. But how does that make you any different? This is pretty much one of the most common goals men in most of the Western world have and to think that the desire to achieve this isn't informed, at least to some extent, by social norms and values is rather short sighted in my opinion.
Moreover - to what extent is your desire to have a home for yourself *not* motivated by either, making a home with your SO (being loved) or not having a respectable place you can call your home (being a loser).
Furthermore, it's important to point out that you aren't applying your attention *directly* to your goal. Your career is a means to an end - to achieve the goal of buying a home. You are not working to build a career for the sake of it, you are doing it to get your home. Thus, you personally wouldn't fall into the category of a young man working hard for the career itself. |
### Human: An Intelligence Explosion is imminent. CMV.### Assistant: If you mean "imminent" on an evolutionary timescale, fine. But if you mean imminent within our lifetimes, bear a few things in mind. First, we have no idea how to make intelligence; the best self-programming computers are about as useful as they were twenty years ago. Second, the growth in computer processor speed has drastically slowed, and we are now pursuing a parallelism strategy which has proved less effective. We are in need of fundamental insight, and sometimes those take decades to arrive. How long have we been waiting to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity? And that's a straightforward problem with known parameters compared to building "intelligence."### Human: >First, we have no idea how to make intelligence
What about IBM Watson?
>Second, the growth in computer processor speed has drastically slowed
This is not true. Look at the [charts from Top 500](http://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/) they have been mapping supercomputer growth for over twenty years and have found that growth is is not slowing down and is exponential.### Assistant: > What about IBM Watson?
What fundamental insights has IBM's Watson offered us into physics, biology, quantum computing, etc?
Admittedly, Watson is intriguing and a potential avenue of research (for both commercialization and pioneering new fields), but it in itself is more of a novelty (like Deep Blue).
>This is not true. Look at the charts from Top 500 they have been mapping supercomputer growth for over twenty years and have found that growth is is not slowing down and is exponential.
Supercomputer growth isn't the same as computer processor speed. It seems like a semantic distinction, but please tolerate it because it's really very important.
Processor speed: How much speed a single processor can do.
Supercomputer growth: how many cores you can throw into a networked machine.
So we can build a factory and turn the entire planet of Jupiter into processors and have unprecedented processing power... but we won't be able to do anything *new* with it, only more of the same thing faster.### Human: >What fundamental insights has IBM's Watson offered us into physics, biology, quantum computing, etc?
So a machine has to give groundbreaking research in order to be called intelligent. Well looks like most humans aren't intelligent.
>Supercomputer growth isn't the same as computer processor speed. It seems like a semantic distinction, but please tolerate it because it's really very important.
>Processor speed: How much speed a single processor can do.
I don't think you've actually looked at the numbers for single core processor speed growth. Look at the charts from [CpuBenchmarks](http://cpubenchmark.net) they have mapped single core and price to performance ratios, and have found the growth is exponential. (Just like supercomputer growth!)
>Supercomputer growth: how many cores you can throw into a networked machine.
Are you kidding me? The IBM supercomputer made for Watson is now the size of a server box and is getting smaller. It is not the amount of cores you can throw in a machine, it is based of the speed of the cores.
I think you are just a little uninformed on the growth in these types of technologies.### Assistant: > So a machine has to give groundbreaking research in order to be called intelligent. Well looks like most humans aren't intelligent.
He means that Watson is not able to come up with anything novel, it's just a very clever database search, it can't answer anything that is not in his database. Watson is really not that interesting in this regard, there are programs (expert systems), that can actually come up with novel solutions to a limited extent, unlike Watson. |
### Human: CMV: The recent "outburst" triggered by the lack of enough Oscars nominations for the MLK biopic "Selma" are all based on a false sense of entitlement. Selma is not a good movie and fear of being branded racist for disagreeing.### Assistant: First of all, the controversy about Selma was that people involved with the Oscars were saying that the success of "12 years a slave" would hurt Selma's chances of nominations. Because apparently a "Black movie" can't win awards two years in a row despite being very different movies, with different feels, cinematography and subject matter. It's ridiculous that the success of a movie primarily containing black people would be harmed by the mere fact that a different "black movie" was successful.
Next is the fact that out of every movie, nomination, etc, for the Oscars **every single last nomination is white**.
It has nothing to do with entitlement or even Selma specifically. The fact is that Hollywood's problem with race has been a problem for a very long time and it appears to be getting worse. We haven't seen a non-white host of the Oscars for about a decade.
> The Oscars are an American affair but they have to realize that they define Film making for the rest of the world.
So?? That's the point. They are defining film in the US as devoid of non-white talent despite the large amount that exists and is being ignored### Human: > every single last nomination is white.
Every single one?### Assistant: All twenty nominated actors### Human: That is not what /u/z3r0share wrote.
> Next is the fact that out of every movie, nomination, etc, for the Oscars **every single last nomination is white**
[Emphasis in original]### Assistant: Yeah I think that's incorrect. What I know is that all twenty nominated actors, best directors, and adapters of screenplays are white. The only articles I've seen have been about the actors and directors.
It can't possibly be every single nomination. There's dozens of categories. |