Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: I feel like GMOs are good for society as a whole. CMV.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: By and large this is correct, the most prevalent GMO crops which have been around the longest are herbicide and/or insect resistant. Traits like these don't increase yield intrinsically; rather they allow for higher yields when under stress. An ear of corn borer-resistant corn and an ear of non-transgenic corn grown in the absence of stress won't look any different, but a field of corn borer-resistant plants will yield more bushels than a susceptible non-transgenic field (unless you apply additional pesticides) of corn would in a region where that pest is common. Traits like these are attractive to growers because they help with their bottom line (more bushels = more $) but can also make their work easier by requiring fewer or no applications of insecticides (bt crops) or enable them to pursue sustainable agricultural practices like no-till with reduced weed stress. There are also traits that tackle other kinds of stress, like drought tolerance, and traits that provide benefit to the consumer rather than the grower, like Vistive soybeans (lower trans-fats) or golden rice (fortified with vitamin A.) Traits that increase increase intrinsic yield are also the subject of research and development, but I'm not aware of any commercial varieties available on the open market. Source: I work in Monsanto's R&D department### Assistant: Also there is the cost/environmental impact from less frequent spraying and of using relatively less harmful pesticides. Both of which can make production cheaper, and minimize ecological damage. Edit: Seeing that you work for Monsanto, how often are you personally attacked for it? Like does it make family/social gatherings a bit tense?### Human: I've never been personally attacked for it, though I occasionally get friends & relations asking me about something they heard in the media or on youtube. There's a lot less vitriol out there than one might expect from the conversations that occur online, especially here in St. Louis where the corporate headquarters is since so many people have an uncle, a friend, etc. that works for the company. A lot of people I meet that ask my about my work haven't even heard of the company, or have but didn't know it was controversial. Some of the people I talk to even think it's a neat idea (like I did.)### Assistant: Do you get protesters outside your work at all? I have a friend in a very similar field who has to pt up with abuse going into work everyday.### Human: Two or three times a year I'll hear about a protest occurring on the main campus (where the most employees and the execs are) or at the Chesterfield campus (where some of the research labs are.) Usually everyone gets a company email along with a reminder not to let anyone without a badge into the building. In my five years nothing too exciting has happened as the result of a protest. Like I said in my earlier comment though, in St Louis there are a lot of Monsanto employees and contractors and a lot of the people in town are their friends and relatives. Some of the other sites across the globe are probably more prone to people getting hassled, but I've never heard of any major incidents.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I don't feel any differently about them than I do any other protest.

### Human: CMV: If you don't tip because you believe the business owner should pay well enough so tipping isn't required, if you patronize that establishment but don't tip, you are reinforcing this model and not changing it.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I'm a server and my hourly rate is $3.25 an hour. If you think that's reasonable, fine. Just let me know at the beginning of the meal and I will treat you like you deserve to be treated at that rate. It's a problematic system. I'm not arguing against that. But refusing to tip because you don't like the system isn't making a point, it's just messing with someone else's income. Stuffing your server isn't going to make the higher-ups change their mind.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: If you sincerely can't bring yourself to give a shit about anybody but yourself, then you can stay at home and cook for your lazy ass. Trust me, no server wants to deal with your demanding, rude ass self for hours on end just to get no feedback whatsoever on how they can improve as employees and wonder how they'll pay their bills. Better yet- find a restaurant that pays their staff accordingly- McDonald's sounds like a great fit for you.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: If dishing out an extra $2-$5 really gets your panties in a twist to that extent, then perhaps try a restaurant that does not allow tipping or get some fast food. In Europe and places where servers are paid $8/hr instead of $2/hr, tipping may be seen as optional; however in restaurants where servers are not paid a livable wage, there is an expectation for patrons to treat their servers like they're actual people who don't deserve to starve or lose their home. If you seriously can't handle that, then cook for your lazy ass self instead; nobody is forcing you to choose restaurants that require tipping.

### Human: CMV: There is a difference between being happy with your body and being an unhealthy weight.### Assistant: Loving oneself can be a good motivation to change things. When a person just feels depressed and hopeless, they're going to say "what's the point of trying a diet, I already know I will fail." But if the person has confidence and they are enjoying life, it will be easier.### Human: I understand that and agree, and I am sympathetic. But what I'm saying is, this new movement in society is to say to them that they are fine the way they are. From a straight-up health standpoint, that's just not true! The message should be more of, be proud of yourself, but also care enough about yourself to change your lifestyle. You know? Although I haven't experienced it first-hand, I totally get the vicious cycle that people with weight issues can go through. I just think the message they are often given is misleading, allows them to justify their unhealthy behaviour, and does more harm than good.### Assistant: >But what I'm saying is, this new movement in society is to say to them that they are fine the way they are. Really? Which movement is this? Can you find, aside from a few tumblr posts, any information on "this" movement? Every time one of these comes up (just search, this is definitely not new to CMV) i find that the biggest problem with the argument is a mischaracterization of the movement. Just like you can find feminists that think all men are rapists and should be neutered where that isn't the actual view of most feminists, so too does a vocal minority misrepresent the HAES movement (though, left unchecked, I can see it entering dangerous territory). >From a straight-up health standpoint, that's just not true! The message should be more of, be proud of yourself, but also care enough about yourself to change your lifestyle. Do a little digging and you'll find this is the entire point of the movement. Currently, fat people are made to feel nothing but shame for who they are. They are forced to seek treatment in private, discouraged from the attitudes of others in public (have you ever watched a fat person ride a bicycle in a crowded area? People are fucking *cruel*). HAES aims to grant the overweight with the necessary mental health and social support so that they *can* work for a better body. Any member of the movement takes the name literally, that thinks it's perfectly healthy to be immensely overweight, is doing the movement an injustice. The idea isn't that it's healthy, it's that it's *okay*. Just like a cancer patient isn't any less of a human, neither is a fat person. The opposing view (aka assholes) like to justify their dickbaggery by claiming that shame will motivate. While that sounds great on paper, the numbers don't back it up, at all. In fact, shame does the exact opposite. Fuck anyone that thinks they are doing anybody a favor by being cruel to them.### Human: 1) You may be right, and I hope you are. While I'm not the most informed on this topic, hence why I decided to bring up this discussion with the original post, I do know that obesity is on the rise. Maybe the whole 'love yourself' movement is having no effect on this at all, but it's just my opinion. 2) Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing, because I 100% support the HAES movement. I *in no way* support any form of shame or cruelty! I'm against the attitude that all sizes are fine and healthy because that's just the way you are. Someone who is 350lbs is not there by a natural and healthy lifestyle, and all I'm saying is that a message of unconditional self-love might tell them that they don't need a change. They are all human and I have sympathy for them and love to see support for them. It's this message I don't agree with, and I think it is a seperate movement (or at least some form of terrible spinoff) of the HAES movement.### Assistant: >I do know that obesity is on the rise. Maybe the whole 'love yourself' movement is having no effect on this at all, but it's just my opinion. Considering obesity has been rocketing in America for a hell of a lot longer than any "self-love" movement regarding obesity, I'm gonna say it probably isn't the cause. In fact >... unconditional self-love might tell them that they don't need a change. They are all human and I have sympathy for them and love to see support for them. I fail to see a real difference between what HAES does and whatever issue you take with "unconditional self-love". Do you have any evidence at all that loving oneself leads to deluding oneself into remaining obese? Or are you just making the same tenuous connection that the assholes I mentioned in my last post make when they justify shaming? I'm a very logical person, and I think deductive reasoning is a wonderful thing. However, while "(1) X loves themself unconditionally" seems to lead to "Therefore (A) X has no need to change" quite reasonably, it is a very simplistic "proof" that ignores billions of other outside factors as well as our current best understanding of human psychology. Long story short, it's a completely *unfounded* fear.### Human: 1) Cause vs Effect. I used the word 'effect'. Obviously the movement is not the cause. But I don't think it is having a positive effect, I think it is telling people with unhealthy lifestyles that they are fine where they are. 2) You said earlier that "HAES aims to grant the overweight with the necessary mental health and social support so that they can work for a better body". That is very different than unconditional self love, which seems to promote "well, I'm 350lbs and unhealthy, but I'm happy with who I am so I see no need to change". I agree with the HAES movement in that everybody, in any condition, needs to be given the tools and support needed to make a positive change. That is a very different thing. I do want everyone to love themselves, but I want them to be realistic about the state of their body in terms of health. And that is not fat shaming - anyone claiming that it is, is being overly defensive.### Assistant: >1) Cause vs Effect. I used the word 'effect'. Obviously the movement is not the cause. But I don't think it is having a positive effect, Sure, that's fair, and I didn't mean to imply that you were claiming it was the sole cause. However, again, you say that you don't think it's having a positive effect, but you haven't backed that up with *any evidence*. You are skipping the most important step in science: the data. It's great that you have a hypothesis (the starting point, following an observation), and it's also great that you have a reasonable *explanation* for it (the admirable goal following confirmation of the hypothesis), but without any actual data, it doesn't really matter how good your reasoning is, *it isn't supported*. Whatever movement you seem to have stumbled upon (since you say it is different from HAES) is pretty young. I don't think it's safe to say *at all* what effect it might be having on the obesity epidemic. In fact, due to its age and relatively minimal exposure, I'd say it's effects are probably statistically non-existent. >You said earlier that "HAES aims to grant the overweight with the necessary mental health and social support so that they can work for a better body". That is very different than unconditional self love, which seems to promote "well, I'm 350lbs and unhealthy, but I'm happy with who I am so I see no need to change". "Seems to promote" according to whom? Is there a flyer somewhere with those exact words? Because it sounds to me like it's just your interpretation. Unconditional self-love is a far cry from body-image satisfaction, and your primary claim is that the former implies the latter, but I just *do not see* a connection. >I agree with the HAES movement in that everybody, in any condition, needs to be given the tools and support needed to make a positive change. That is a very different thing. I do want everyone to love themselves, but I want them to be realistic about the state of their body in terms of health. Loving oneself doesn't mean being content with the way you are at present. Loving yourself is a very *very* helpful first step in making yourself a better person, regardless of the types of changes you want to make. Also important to remember: a few people spreading unhealthy messages on tumblr doesn't make a "movement".

### Human: CMV: I think that the "everybody's a winner" mentality is bad for the mind### Assistant: I think you don't give kids enough credit when it comes to motivation. I grew up in a time when the sports I played that gave out trophies did give out participation trophies. I can tell you every single kid hated the participation ones. We all wanted the big ones that the champions got. It maybe even served as extra motivation. That tiny thing was more of a slap in the face if anything. Also, the participation trophies stopped around 13/14 which I think is normal. As for what we should be teaching kids in youth sports, I think technique and effort should be taught over winning. The simple fact is at younger ages kids are developing at different times. A lot of kids who hit puberty first are the biggest, strongest, fastest at age 12. So because they can just use their superior athleticism they never develop proper technique. They focus more on winning then proper form. When the other kids who had to lean proper technique just to compete catch up in terms of size and strength they easily surpass the early bloomers.### Human: That's the same way I felt. Kids aren't dumb, they know what a winner's trophy looks like.### Assistant: I think my thoughts were a little different but along the same line. Even at a very young age, I remember feeling bad about getting a participation trophy. I figured some adult was thinking that I'd feel bad about getting nothing, when in reality I really didn't care. But it was an insult for sure, because it implied I was emotionally undeveloped just because I always got distracted by bugs and stuff (and I sucked for real).### Human: To me it seemed to lessen the achievements of others rather than make us all feel like winners. Christian was clearly the best, let's all congratulate him, and then go get pizza (the only worthy participation reward).### Assistant: Christian being the best didn't happen in a vaccum and he wasn't a one man team. Christian being the best is worthy of celebration but if Christian is mad that the other people are being praised for their contributions then Christian is a little shit.### Human: I was just using an example of the best person on our team. He was actually an really nice guy, and an incredibly hard worker. But we were swimming, so except for the one relay event, you pretty much only have yourself to depend on.### Assistant: If your team didn't qualify for the meet, he would not have had an opportunity to compete. If he didn't train with them, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to build his skills in that environment, etc. No victory is won by a single person.### Human: Except for when they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_sports### Assistant: Competition does not exist in vacuum. If you don't have others to compete against, you're just exhibiting.### Human: We can argue semantics back and forth all day, but I get where you're coming from. The question is, do the rest of the team deserve trophies. Do your competitors deserve trophies for driving you to victory?### Assistant: Yes the rest of the team deserves trophies. If the 'winner' had gone and stood in a field and tried to take on the 2nd place soccer team, he would have gotten his ass kicked. In individual sports you're often trying to beat someone else's record, so yes they drove you to victory. In other individual sports you're still engaging in a competitive environment. Does the fact that a competitor also gets a token to commemorate their achievement and effort somehow detract from the winner's victory? Seems this whole thing is just about sore winners not wanting anyone else to have a sliver of the glory.### Human: Not to mention, these are 8 year old children. Not Michael Phelps. As has been said before, they need encouragement to develop their skills more than they need praise for winning. I feel like most professional athletes at 6-8 years old had other people in their neighborhoods who could beat them, but the difference was that they kept working at it until they were better.

### Human: I believe the structure of tipping needs to radically change. CMV.### Assistant: I'd move to abolish tips altogether. Servers should be paid a wage like any other employee. This will of course mean that restaurant menu prices will rise or be folded into a mandatory service charge. But because of market effects I think it will work out. For example, if a high end restaurant wants good servers they'll pay their servers higher wages. And restaurants that can get by on minimal or mediocre service will pay minimum or just above minimum wage. A current example, albeit not in the food industry, would be Costco compared to Walmart. Costco famously pays its employees well which results in on average more experienced and more competent employees while Walmart relies on minimum wage labor so you're unlikely to get any service above what fits their job description. Tipping has deep cultural roots so will probably not go away soon. But a couple restaurants are experimenting with alternative schemes. Edit: I've found the articles about the no tip restaurants. [Freakonomic's Blog](http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/08/01/lessons-from-a-no-tipping-restaurant/) [HuffPo article about Sushi Yasuda](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/sushi-yasuda-tipping-new-york-japanese_n_3398027.html)### Human: I have no problem with tipping when it is used to reward exceptional service, a way of saying more than just thank you at the end of the night. I agree with OP that servers thinking they are owed tips is completely wrong and that tipping should not be considered obligatory.### Assistant: They think they are owed tips because they are paid $2/hour and their employer basically expects tips in order for them to make a livable wage. If there's something wrong wight the tipping system, it's not "These greedy servers wanting tips for doing the bare minimum." It's the fact that they have to depend on tips, not hourly pay, in order to live.### Human: First comment addressed this, and said that servers should be paid better wages instead Edit: first comment, not OP. But OP said the systems broken, not that he shouldn't tip### Assistant: What's your point? Hsc30 was responding to someone else about something else.

### Human: CMV: I shouldn't stop listening to a music artist because of their personal life (specifically XXXTentacion)### Assistant: >I feel the need to state that I don't agree with anything XXX does or has done. I think it's despicable. I genuinely thing this is horrible. The question is: does that disgust at their despicable actions come up in your mind when you hear the works of that person? If not, at least subconsciously... you're a pretty weird person. When that happens to me, I find that I can't really enjoy their work any more. I can't read Orson Scott Card books any more, even though I still think he's a genius writer, because of his extremist (to the point of advocating violence) homophobic politics. I just can't enjoy it any more. When the person producing something you like is disgusting, how can that disgust not color your opinion of them. How can you not wonder if those disgusting views are coloring every word coming out of their mouth. How can you trust what you're hearing? They've basically lost credibility... So why listen to anything they say? At the very least: don't financially support people like that, when you know that a specific person will use their power and money to spread views that you personally don't want to have spread. One last point: I don't know this particular artist's works, so I don't know whether, as many rappers do, he advocates violence or disdain towards women in his works. But if he does... you know he's not just saying it, but that he really believes it... and his work is normalizing it.### Human: By that logic, the works of any person are tainted. Some famous examples: Gandhi was a flaming racist and misogynist (well, and pretty much everyone is still racist, they just don't like to admit it) MLK Jr, JFK, and Bill Clinton all cheated on their wives Obama took gifts from private entities and expanded military surveillance Jesus committed vandalism Nobody is perfect, but their imperfections should not taint the validity of their words and actions.### Assistant: The vandalism was illegal but it's hard to say it was immoral.### Human: Maybe that was a bad example, but I have several others that demonstrate my point more effectively. Violence of any kind is immoral, but may provide utility greater than the moral quandary it causes. It is still immoral. That means Jesus, too.### Assistant: I personally don't understand the logic there. Surely if something's doing more good than harm it's the morally good thing to do, right? I mean at that point you're picking the lesser of two evils.### Human: It depends on your philosophy. If good and bad are related such that "good - bad = net goodness or badness", then yes. "The ends justify the means" If good and bad are related such that "bad > 0 = net badness" and "good > 0 = net goodness", then no. "the ends do not justify the means, but that doesn't mean that the means and/or ends were or were not good" Additionally, because morals are subjective, one could be of the belief that those selling in the church were not in the wrong at all. This would render Jesus a "bad person" by any logic, as he loses his justification.### Assistant: That's a valid way of looking at it. I personally never thought of it as immoral but I could understand others seeing it that way.### Human: I'm glad I was able to add some insight to the issue :)

### Human: CMV: Women should sign up for the draft in the United States at age 18 or the draft should be done away with.### Assistant: It's been a very long time since we had a full-scale war; 1945 is just barely within living memory. That's why it's excusable that we should have forgotten what total war *really means.* It means most of the young, able-bodied men in the country are going to die. And that, in a nutshell, is why we don't send young, able-bodied women off to fight in wars. It's got nothing to do with equality. It's strictly pragmatic. Somebody needs to be left behind to make babies for the next generation, so we can replace the millions we'll lose.### Human: what about lesbians, or straight women that have reproductive issues?### Assistant: Lesbians can make babies, too.### Human: not if they don't want to. are they left behind to be raped for humanity?### Assistant: Heterosexual women won't become pregnant if they don't want to either. It's just the easiest way to put people into those two classes.

### Human: CMV: Judges should never be elected.### Assistant: Honestly, judges will likely never be elected based on merit, so it really just comes down to who you want influencing the judicial branch: other politicians, or the people. Look at supreme court justices: all appointments are incredibly political maneuvers. When the democrats have a majority they will elect liberal justices, and when the republicans have a majority they elect conservative ones. They also almost always have ulterior motives: giving the position to their friends or people they think will be sympathetic to them in court. [Here](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief) is an article outlining Obama's manipulation of the DC court of appeals to make sure the ACA was approved. During the first trial, there was a conservative majority and the bill was ruled unconstitutional, but a little while later, after Obama appointed 2 new justices, he pushed the majority into his favor and was able to get the act approved. I'm not saying this was an issue with this one instance, but it's just a general example of how the judicial system works. If the people are electing judges, on the other hand, they won't be voting for a certain person because they know that this individual will approve or disapprove of a bill that will appear before them in the future. Instead, they will elect a judge who's political and ideological beliefs they support, which I think is the right method. Shouldn't the people themselves elect the judge who will be overseeing the place they live?### Human: I agree that appointments won't eliminate political influence on judges, but it does limit that influence. Obama is free to pick judges who he thinks will ideologically support him, but once they're on the bench, he can't do anything to stop them ruling against him. Elections, and especially re-elections have the potential and indeed purpose of influencing judges' decisions, which I think is improper. To use your Obamacare example, John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee wrote the ruling upholding it as constitutional. His doing so infuriated Republicans, but they can't do anything about it, except go through the proper legislative process to repeal the law. >If the people are electing judges, on the other hand, they won't be voting for a certain person because they know that this individual will approve or disapprove of a bill that will appear before them in the future. Instead, they will elect a judge who's political and ideological beliefs they support, which I think is the right method. Shouldn't the people themselves elect the judge who will be overseeing the place they live? I think elections make it much more likely that judges will campaign based on specific promises (and making such promises is itself bad judicial behavior). Further, no I don't think the people should pick every official who will oversee the functions of government. We don't elect police officers or teachers. The role of elections I see is to select people who make the law. If the people want to change how the law is enforced, their legislators can do that. In the 80s-90s Americans wanted judges to give tougher sentences, so the Congress enacted mandatory minimums and mandatory sentencing guidelines. But ultimately judges are meant to be people enacting law, not making it. I don't expect two legislators considering the same bill to vote the same way. But I do expect two judges deciding the same case to decide it the same way. If the people don't like those decisions, then the political branches of government can change the law so that the rules of the decision are different.### Assistant: > I think elections make it much more likely that judges will campaign based on specific promises (and making such promises is itself bad judicial behavior). When it comes to laws, there is room for interpretation. There is mandatory sentencing laws and the like, sure, but there is always going to be leeway for a judge to determine slightly different verdicts, and that manifests itself in setting bail at different amounts, longer/shorter sentencing for a crime, or whether or not to grant parole. Shouldn't the people who this judge presides over have a say in this? Sure, laws will be passed depending on what the people want, but there won't be a law passed saying whether murders should be given life in prison versus 50 years in prison, so why can't a state/district have the right to vote for this?### Human: >Shouldn't the people who this judge presides over have a say in this? Sure, laws will be passed depending on what the people want, but there won't be a law passed saying whether murders should be given life in prison versus 50 years in prison, so why can't a state/district have the right to vote for this? I don't think it's proper for public pressure to change sentencing or other judicial decisions, and I don't think such pressure is avoidable with judicial elections. For instance [judges in Iowa were kicked out after a campaign to punish them for saying same sex marriage was a constitutional right.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa#Judicial_retention_Elections) There is an avenue for a democratic voice in having elected officials do the appointing of judges, but once on the bench, judges should be immune from political pressure.### Assistant: > I don't think it's proper for public pressure to change sentencing or other judicial decisions, and I don't think such pressure is avoidable with judicial elections. For instance judges in Iowa were kicked out after a campaign to punish them for saying same sex marriage was a constitutional right. What if the opposite happened? A conservative leaning president appoints some conservative judges because they want some help getting their bills through the court, but then a judge goes rogue, and starts doing things like opposing same sex marriage and revealing a side to them that no one foresaw. While lifetime appointments give them immunity from political pressure, it also gives them immunity to pretty much everything, so any personal belief they hold can manifest itself in the court.### Human: That happens quite a bit. I don't see a problem with it really, especially because appeals courts have multiple judges and you need a majority of those judges to sign the opinion. David Souter quite famously was a Republican appointee who turned out to have liberal beliefs. His presence on the court did not provoke any crisis of governance nor produce notably bad rulings. If the judge begins violating the law or judicial ethics rules, then you can begin the proceedings to remove her, but a simple change in philosophy should not remove a judge from the bench. I don't think you can have both independence and political accountability. And I think the case for independence is far stronger, given the importance of an objective and fair rule of law that treats people equally in courts.

### Human: I believe people should not be allowed to bring babies in a movie theater except if it's a special "everybody can bring their babies" showing/theater. CMV### Assistant: >if someone brings their baby and it either starts making cooing noises or starts crying *and the parent either does nothing or tries to get the baby to stop crying while still in the theater instead of taking it outside* So this is the real problem. The part about babies is a red herring - if *anyone* is being disruptive, they should leave the theater. You don't need any sort of ban beyond that. Annoying people who talk through movies don't need a special ban. Slightly older kids that still throw tantrums don't need a ban. *Everyone* just needs to STFU in the theater, and leave (with parents if necessary) if they make noise. As a parent, we usually get a babysitter but we brought our baby to the theater on a couple instances when we were pretty sure he would sleep through it. We sat by the aisle near the exit. If he woke up and started making even the smallest noise, one of us was instantly out of there with him. The two of us saw different halves of Hunger Games because we were trading off with the baby in the hall. TL;DR: responsible parents don't need a ban in order to not bother other people, and inconsiderate assholes will always be inconsiderate regardless of what you ban.### Human: While I appreciate the fact that you "think" you are being responsible, sadly you are not. There is no excuse to take a baby to a movie, I would argue even a kids movie but hey I'll give you that. Even if you do get up and take your kid outside that is still disruptive and annoying. If you can't get a babysitter no movie for you sorry. I don't have kids (for a reason) and guess what, I don't want to put up with yours either (at least not in a venue that is not appropriate for kids). I am so sick of parents that are like oh well couldn't get a babysitter guess we have to take our kid with us, uh no, the considerate thing to do is YOU don't go because YOU have the kid. Anyway the way to solve this issue is you don't bring kids to movies end of story, and you also kick out inconsiderate assholes, the thing is you have already put yourself in the inconsiderate part (maybe not the asshole part) by bringing your baby to a movie in the first place. End rant.### Assistant: If someone walking out of the theatre with a baby is disrupting your movie experience then YOU have a problem and You are an insensitive jerk. When my baby was younger 0-9 months I took her with me all the time, it was either with baby or just stay home all the time. I sat next to the exit as well and took my baby out as soon as she made a peep(she usually slept right through) and I had people telling me after the movie that they didn't even notice that there was a baby in the theatre. So cut some slack, new parent have it already hard enough.### Human: You had a baby, not me. There are plenty of things that you can go out and do with a baby that would be plenty appropriate and fun for the baby as well. How many babies enjoy going to a dark, loud, theater and being quiet for two hours? GTFO with your BS. I am an insensitive jerk because when I go to a movie I don't want to deal with a bunch of BS while i'm trying to watch the movie, like a bunch of babies. I'm actually a real asshole, I don't like it when people answer their phones, or text, or talk thru the whole movie either. Would you take your kid to a bar? By your logic its that or stay home right so why not, all the insensitive jerks like me should change our expectations because you brought your baby somewhere you shouldn't. If you where able to pull it off with out annoying a bunch of people kudos to you, but in my experience you would have to be an exception, but why not just do the respectful thing and leave the baby at home or just go do things with you baby that are appropriate for a baby.### Assistant: I'm not going to change my habits because a stranger. Doing fun things is for me not for the baby. I'm not going to watch some stupid kids movie with a 1 month old who doesn't give a fuck when I really want to watch Avengers. If my baby behaves and people are still complaining then they are the jerks. Leaving a newborn home is a real hassle, even more so if you are breastfeeding.### Human: >Doing fun things is for me not for the baby. Mother of the year here. I'm not saying you shouldn't have fun but maybe you shouldn't have had a baby. Seriously I rarely get to go to the movies and I don't have a kid. Again you may go and not bother anyone but I doubt it, because kids are kids its not their fault, its the parents fault who drag them places they shouldn't because you know, its all about YOU right, lol.### Assistant: Having a baby does not mean I can't have any fun any more. After having a baby it is all about the baby. One month old's idea of fun is a full tummy, that means I will be with my baby 24/7. All my baby did at the movies was sleep, no noise whatsoever. If just seeing a baby in the theatre is upsetting then you have a problem.### Human: Please read my previous comment again. This is just going in circles. I never said you shouldn't have fun, I never said I have a problem with a sleeping child, its just in my experience this is never the case (at the movies).### Assistant: Sorry, the comment you mentioned was just a bit offensive and I got a little angry :) I have never had a bad experience with other parents children in the movies and I think banning all the children is a bad idea. They should just be more strict with people who are loud or texting ect.

### Human: CMV: I mainly agree with Russia over Ukraine.### Assistant: > Russia did not violate international law by annexing Crimea. Whether they did so in poor taste is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with politics or international law. It also has nothing to do with the USSR, or the Cold War. When Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on their soil everyone, including Russia, signed agreements not to interfere with Ukraine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances Its an internal matter to Ukraine, not Russia. You (or Russia) couldn't justify China moving into Russia because there was an internal Russian uprising.### Human: It stopped being an internal matter to Ukraine when their elected government stopped functioning and the people of Crimea decided they no longer wanted to be a part of Ukraine. That is not a violation of any law.### Assistant: > when their elected government stopped functioning How so? Isn't that just a call for another election? At worse the Ukraine army holds the peace until another election? Why does Russia need to step in? Again, Russia government "stops functioning" so does China gets to move into Russia? > and the people of Crimea decided they no longer wanted to be a part of Ukraine. That actually occurred after Russia moved in. Not exactly the most impartial separation movement.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > Edit 2: Let's not kid ourselves, the "local defense forces" in the uprising are Russian troops Because they're wearing the same color ski masks?? Meanwhile they're unorganized and unprofessional according to Haaretz... >>Despite the evident weakness of the Ukrainian military, it seems that something is going wrong also with the Russian plans. Unlike the fast and efficient takeover by anonymous forces, fighters from special Russian units, of the Crimean peninsula, the armed groups now controlling government buildings in eastern Ukraine seem badly organized, despite their Russian guidance, ample weapons and reinforcements of “volunteers” from Russia. According to some reports, they also include local criminals. Moscow is hard-pressed to control them. And unlike in Crimea, the Ukrainian army is prepared on the border and while its resources are much more limited than the Russians’, for now Putin seems to avoiding all-out war. http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.587318### Human: Are you not going to address the dubiousness of the referendum results? And the fact that Crimeans were not given the option to remain part of Ukraine?### Assistant: It's none of my business. The people in Crimea seem to accept it. I have other things to worry about... chief among which is not watching our relationship with Russia deteriorate over our own hypocrisy, making it more difficult to work with DPRK, reigniting the Cold War, etc.### Human: Wait, since when did we *really* care what the Russians think of us? It's not the '80s anymore and neither of us can afford to wage an all-out conventional war. We care about hurting Russia's *feelings* by telling them they can't annex every nearby country that goes through some domestic troubles? Fuck their feelings. And we don't need to "work with" Russia as far as the DPRK is concerned. They're powerless. If they fuck with us, South Korea or Japan, we level Pyongyang. Game over. We don't need to "work with" anyone as far as the Kim clan is concerned. And as far as reigniting the Cold War is concerned, I'm honestly not all that concerned about it. Honestly, it might be nice to have a *foreign* boogeyman that isn't "terrorism" again. Give our intelligence agencies something better to do than see what kind of porn some housewife is into. God knows our military spending isn't going anywhere, I'd rather see it spent on coming up with new and exciting ways to blow *other people* up.### Assistant: >Wait, since when did we really care what the Russians think of us? It's not the '80s anymore and neither of us can afford to wage an all-out conventional war. Since the 1980s and the USSR collapsed and the DRPK started going insane and since China because a true super power. Sorry you didn't get that memo... but to be clear you're right. We as a country don't care, and never will care... even if it means shooting ourselves in the foot and negatively effecting our own economy, etc. >And we don't need to "work with" Russia as far as the DPRK is concerned. They're powerless. If they fuck with us, South Korea or Japan, we level Pyongyang. Game over. We don't need to "work with" anyone as far as the Kim clan is concerned. Yes... and a more behind the scenes approach is definitely not a better alternative to this. >And as far as reigniting the Cold War is concerned, I'm honestly not all that concerned about it. Well... that sounds like a pleasant thing to strive for.

### Human: CMV :: I believe physically demanding jobs should not have gender-specific standards in their physical fitness testing. Change my view...### Assistant: These fitness tests are not to determine if you are strong enough to do certain tasks. If it was, then they would just have you do those tasks. It's to prove a certain level of physical fitness. Due to differences in body types and muscle mass, a fit woman is still not as strong as a fit man. You don't finish basic training and then they send you off to the middle east, it's *basic*.### Human: Than why not lower the standards for men as well? Obviously there is a reason for those standards. And whether you are a man or a woman does not matter during a war. The enemy will want to kill you all the same, so having different standards for ANY purpose is pointless.### Assistant: Because a fit women is not as strong as a fit man. If he was as strong as a fit women, he wouldn't be fit.### Human: But your "fitness" doesn't matter. You abilities matter. An old person might be extremely "fit" for his age, but that does not mean he should be in the army. If woman can't perform as well as men, than they should not be in the army. The army is not a fitness test. Having physically weak people in the army endangers the lives of everyone else there. I don't think you would want a physically weak person in your squad, if you were deployed. They are a threat to everyone else. What if you get shot and need to be carried for long distances? You comrades "fitness" does not matter as much as there abilities.### Assistant: I already addressed this. If they wanted to test ability, then they would've have had them do those tasks.### Human: Running 10 miles is a task. Running 10 miles in Afghanistan is also a task. Doing a 100 pushups is a task. Carrying another soldier is also a task. The fitness tests are just a series of tasks. Tasks that test your physical abilities. The don't do "specific" tasks because a lot of things can go wrong. So they test general physical ability. And whether you are a male or a female, you will be doing the same tasks when you are deployed. If they are going to lower the standards for women, than they should have separate weaker units for women. They should not be mixed. But I don't know how adding weaker units for variety helps save lives.### Assistant: You can set up and obstacle course for people to run to mirror the terrain in Afghanistan. You can give then a 150 pound sack to carry a certain distance. These are basic exercises to show fitness. They have the equipment to do more life-like tests but they don't because it's a test of fitness.### Human: fitness is dynamic. They cannot anticipate every single task you may do so they require you to qualify fitness, If you try out for a soccer team yeah they are gonna look if you can play soccer but they are also gonna require you to run and do squats and pushups. Doing these fitness things shows you are prepared for whatever comes at you at the "game"

### Human: CMV: There should be no such thing as legally mandated 'sick leave'. Instead, everyone should get extra 'annual leave' entitlements.### Assistant: The penalty for taking sick leave is... that you are sick. If you are faking being sick, then the suitable penalty is being fired. So we already have penalties in place, even if they don't always work or ate sometimes abused. The problem with merging sick leave and holiday leave is that people will likely not take time off when they have the flu (they are saving for that big holiday), infecting the whole office and causing lots of lost productivity.### Human: >The penalty for taking sick leave is... that you are sick. Agreed. If you are faking being sick, there's not really any penalty- If your employer demands proof, you can get a doctor's certificate very easily these days...### Assistant: Until it comes to time for promotion, increased responsibility or a reference for a new job. In addition, in the UK you can be asked to leave your job on the grounds of having a persistent or long-term illness that makes it impossible for you to do your job.### Human: > can be asked to leave your job Is this equivalent to being fired? That sounds like an ADA lawsuit in the states.### Assistant: https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave "As a last resort, employers can dismiss an employee who is long-term sick, but before they can do this employers must: consider if an employee can return to work - eg working flexibly or part-time, doing different or less stressful work (with training if necessary) consult with employees about when they could return to work and if their health will improve An employee can take their case to an employment tribunal if they think they’ve been unfairly dismissed." https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/reasons-you-can-be-dismissed "Illness You can be dismissed if you have a persistent or long-term illness that makes it impossible for you to do your job. Before taking any action, your employer should: look for ways to support you - eg considering whether the job itself is making you sick and needs changing give you reasonable time to recover from your illness If you have a disability (which may include long-term illness), your employer has a legal duty to support disability in the workplace. Dismissal because of a disability may be unlawful discrimination."

### Human: CMV: I believe that chess should have a mirrored set up, instead of having "queen on color"### Assistant: I've played this way accidentally. I haven't exactly done a huge amount of testing, but I remember that I only noticed because I realized I could win by harrassing the other guy's King because my Queen was on the same file. I could put a lot of pressure on the King pawn (which is usually the ~~King~~ Queen pawn). I was white. I think the rotationally symmetric version of chess gives a huge advantage to white.### Human: Based on what analysis? I've done computer analysis and it seems to initially give black a strong advantage (HIARCS scores it -0.30 at 14 ply depth).### Assistant: Nope, SF gives it about a 0.9 for white at 23 depth.### Human: Yes, this seems right now that I've accounted for castling rights.### Assistant: Very interesting! I was just relating a personal anecdote, but I'm interested to know more about the analysis you guys just discussed. What is SF?### Human: Stockfish. A chess engine.### Assistant: Ah thanks!

### Human: CMV: I believe that the "lovable loser" protagonist that gets the girl in films is misleading and should be avoided.### Assistant: I think the problem is less that the lovable loser is winning the girl of his dreams, and more the problem that the woman is something to be won. I tend to question the feminist logic on a lot of things, but I think there is something to be said for the fact that we still, to a degree, portray the female love interest as a prize to be won, and that this in turn leads children (who, without adult guidance, as many kids are) to think that, because they are the main character in their story, they are owed a pretty girl.### Human: I am not sure I understand it. Basically we are taught from childhood that if we want anything we have to work hard towards getting it, to achieve our objectives. Although it is literally objectifying and at some level wrong, it is still very hard to see how else could people approach it? After all if being loved is an acceptable goal, and it is, it is normal that people treat it as a goal to work toward, an objective to achieve, a prize to win by doing the right sort of things? In the broad sense for example improving ones looks and so on. I mean the only 100% non-objectifying way to do it would be to not have this as a goal at all but leave it up to chance. Like in those old movies and 19th century books where people do not work towards getting love - they just "happen to" fall in love with each other but otherwise happy being alone. But today most people I think are not like that - they actively want to end their loneliness. Besides those who leave it to chance will be outcompeted by those who figure it what women want (good looks, confidence etc.) and provide it. While it is at some level objectifying, it does not stem from misogyny but more like similar to male friendships. We do not just "happen to" become friends with other men but if it does not happen we are happy being lonely. Rather we have the objective of having friends and a social circle, and work towards achieving this goal.### Assistant: Here's the odd secret: Your best chance at ending loneliness is being able to be happy alone. Figure that out, and the desperation goes away and you ease into it because you can be yourself around people you're attracted to. The secret is specifically not to work towards the goal, but to actively work towards other goals, and in doing so become a more interesting person.### Human: I think humans are inherently social so this does not work. I cannot even imagine people being happy alone. Why do you think solitary confinement is a horrible punishment in prison?### Assistant: Change "be happy alone" to "be a person who can exist and be decently happy without a romantic relationship." Or as I like to tell people, be a person you would want to be around, and enjoy being that person. Do things you like doing, but be sure that you're still a person who can interact socially. Just understand that your social group will likely be where potential lifemates come from, so if you're a fat slob with no income and a hygiene problem, you will not magically find a gorgeous soulmate. As you said below, "basically not hating yourself" is in essence, what we're talking about. If I'm not happy with who I am, no amount of supermodels and money will make me happy.### Human: >As you said below, "basically not hating yourself" is in essence, what we're talking about. If I'm not happy with who I am, no amount of supermodels and money will make me happy. They can make you stop hating yourself because they validate you, they reaffirm that you are valuable and loveable and thus you are OK. It is really circular because self-hate usually caused by other people hating you and it is only stopped by other people loving you. But you must show yourself worthy of it first so it is really circular. Life is all about positive and negative feedback circles, winning and losing "streaks".### Assistant: > They can make you stop hating yourself because they validate you, they reaffirm that you are valuable and loveable and thus you are OK. I don't buy it. They can make you happier, but if you are not happy with yourself, another person's validation cannot make you happy. When my ex left, it didn't crush me. it hurt a bit, but not as much as it could (we were destined to be in different places anyway) but I wasn't completely crushed. I had a support network of other people I wasn't romantically invested in, and I had a life I could keep living on my own. And cats. Fuck yeah, cats. Anyway, if your entire life is held together by one person, you're going to have a miserable life until you meet that person, and you'll end up in deeper shit than before if you invest time in a person just for that person to leave. i'm not the expert, and saying "fuck the haters, overcome fuck yeah" won't fix it, but I can say with five-sigma confidence that the only thing that can make you stop hating yourself is you, or perhaps some really good drugs.

### Human: CMV: I don't think disrespecting the dead is worse than disrespecting the living.### Assistant: The dead can't retaliate or defend themselves. Do you intellectually insult the mentally challenged? Would you curse out a deaf woman? Give the finger to a blind man?### Human: The dead don't care, because they are dead. Whereas the mentally challenged aren't, they can hear what you say and can be offended by it. The only people that are hurt when you disrespect a dead person, are the living friends and relatives, not the dead.### Assistant: Then why is talking behind someone's back considered unsavory, even if they never find out about it? Because they can't challenge it as bullshit or a lie. A dead person disrespected can never give their side of the argument. It's a one sided battle, an unfair fight. It's passive aggressive in the worst possible way. Because they can never confront you about it. Edit: I used the mentally challenged argument to clarify the inability of some groups to defend themselves. A mentally challenged individual has no recourse against some guy using big words they can't hope to disprove or even understand.### Human: The big difference between talking behind someones back, and talking about someone dead, is the fact that one is alive and the other isn't. When you talk behind someones back, there lives can be impacted by it. "X did this, what a prick" It can have an impact on their lives, it ruins their image. The dead don't care about how it may tarnish their image, because they are dead. The dead don't care about anything. The only people that will care are their living relatives. If a living relative is offended, then it changes from disrespecting the dead, to disrespecting the living.### Assistant: So then let's take this argument to its end. Do you think we should bury the dead? Why or why not? Assuming you said yes, where do you draw the line, then, between respect and acknowledgement of a lack of life?### Human: Down to the families. A funeral/burying the dead isn't for the dead, it's for the living. If burying or cremating a loved one brings them closure and means that they can begin to move on then they should do that. If the dead person made a wish before they died saying that they wish to be laid to rest at their favorite park (for example) then the family do it because the dead will be at rest where they wanted to be, and so it gives the living closure and peace of mind. In reality, it doesn't matter where the dead are laid to rest, they're dead. At the same time, if they don't wish to do this, then for health purposes it should be disposed of properly.### Assistant: There is the issue that people are motivated by the concept of "legacy". Not respecting the concept means that people stop holding it valuable, and this can be a loss for society - which relies on people caring about it.

### Human: CMV: Soft Eugenics is a great idea.### Assistant: So let's give a scientist couple money to have three kids. Great. But then if a less intelligent couple goes and and has lots of kids what's the point. But let's abandon this fiction that reproductive freedom should reign supreme. Every time we have tried version of making things better we just used our biases to take away rights from people. This is more of the same.### Human: Eveey time we encourage teenagers not to get pregnant, we take someone's rights away?### Assistant: Would you encourage a smart teenager to have a child?### Human: Not under normal circumstances.### Assistant: We encourage kids not to have kids because it tends to be a very limiting life choice. They could have a child, but their life will be very different. We don't do it because we want to make society better. They are not one in the same.### Human: That's certainly debatable. Decreasing teen pregnancy is definitely a boon to society as a whole. Having a kid is a pretty limiting decision at any age, but it's less limiting the more capable the parents are of supporting it. The fact is, the societal decision to discourage teen pregnancy isn't constrained by this debate and is done for ALL the benefits it provides.### Assistant: Saying you're against teen pregnancy isn't a pro argument for Eugenics based on intelligence. If I grab two very smart kids and they have a kid than that child would support the OP's argument, but we don't suggest that anyone actually do that. .### Human: It's not an argument for eugenics *by itself.* It does make it hard to claim the reproductive choices of an individual aren't the business of any other individual. That's a far cry from eugenics. But it's not staunch individualism either.### Assistant: But we tell teens not to have kids because they are unprepared for what it takes to have a child of their own. Other than teen agers there isn't really anyone who tell to breed or not breed. And this idea is flawed in so many ways. Eugenics only "works" if you get full buy in from everyone. IF you don't have that, and you wouldn't, than it doesn't work.### Human: >Eugenics only works if you get fully buy in from everyone. This is simply untrue. There have been plenty of eugenic efforts that have worked without compulsion or universal application. Tay-Sachs eradication among Jews comes to mind. Other examples include, encouraging people to think carefully about their spouses, encouraging mentally ill people to use long-term birth control, genetic counseling, etc. There are plenty of eugenic "half-measures" which have done lots of good. In fact, the "half-measures" have done much more good than the horrific "full-measures."### Assistant: > Tay-Sachs eradication among Jews comes to mind. > So does encouraging people to think carefully about their spouses. Where they paid not to breed? Were the Jewish families paid or given economic incentives not to breed. And thinking carefully about your spouse is common sense. It has nothing to do with what you're talking about unless you really want to thin out the idea of what Eugenics is.### Human: I do want to thin out the idea of Eugenics. I'm trying to remove the state from the equation. The state shouldn't be paying people not to reproduce. In fact, the state should in now way be involved in reproductive decisions (except for folks who habitually abuse children).

### Human: CMV: Prostitution is not a form of violence against women### Assistant: I think some of it comes down to an issue of consent. Coerced consent is not really consent. The line between purchased consent and coerced consent is not exactly hard-cut. Also from what I understand, countries with legal prostitution have huge problems with human trafficking. >Ninety percent of identified victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation came from Europe, including 28 percent from Germany, 20 percent from Romania, and 18 percent from Bulgaria. [Trafficking in Persons Report 2010](http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2010/142760.htm) > The antitrafficking NGO Comensha registered 826 victims in 2008, an increase from 716 in 2007. The top five countries of origin were the Netherlands (320 victims), China (78), Nigeria (64), Hungary (45), and Sierra Leone (44). [2009 Human Rights Report: Netherlands](http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136049.htm) Germany, Netherlands, Hungary and Bulgaria have legalized prostitution, and brothels are legal in Germany and Netherlands. While Romania, China and Sierra Leone have not legalized it, prostitution is a major problem in all of them. The ties between human trafficking, brothels, prostitution and the porn industry go deep. I don't want to say that sex work is inherently wrong, but the way it works in todays society is. I think we need to advance into a far more humane society before we can have anything resembling ethical sex work.### Human: > The line between purchased consent and coerced consent is not exactly hard-cut. I used to agree with OP, but the idea that purchased consent isn't really consent had never previously occurred to me. I can definitely see the moral problem if someone turns to prostitution to avoid going broke, even if it's in a safe and legal setting. In my opinion, that person can't really be said to have consented under those circumstances. ∆ **NB. I'm not OP**### Assistant: Since you used to see things how I do let me ask your opinion of this hypothetical situation: Linda is broke and has bills to pay or she risks losing her house. For the sake of argument let's say that there are legal brothels that protect sex workers very well and allow the sex workers to refuse clients. Let's also say that no other possible job exists for Linda. Linda now has a choice between losing her home or preforming sex work. Linda doesn't particularly care for the idea of being a sex worker, but she *really* doesn't want to lose her home. To me it seems like if this is a coercive choice it is still solidly *Linda's* choice. Now imagine a different scenario in which Linda's rent is due and she has the choice between working in a McDonalds for 13 hours a day or going broke. Linda sees working there as degrading, unpleasant, and something she wishes she didn't have to do. She has a terrible boss who belittles her and she has to clean toilets and children's messes all day. What is the difference between the two examples? Is this coercion as well? What if Linda would rather spend a few hours at the brothel sleeping with men a day so she can take care of the kid she's raising on her own? To me I see only one difference between the two and that is there is an act of sex involved. If we are to maintain that we have freedom in a society where the second example is very real I feel we have to admit there is freedom in the first example. The final question ends up being: do you believe that consent is only necessary if sex is evolved in the equation, even in a world where there are people who'd rather preform sex work than work at McDonalds? If not, oddly enough I feel your objection to coercion might be an objection to capitalism as opposed to sex-work. That's what I've come to believe at least after having this CMV.### Human: > To me it seems like if this is a coercive choice it is still solidly Linda's choice. Become a prostitute or lose your home is not a choice. The choice has essentially been taken from her by the society that allowed her to lose her home and didn't support her when she needed help. > Do you believe that consent is only necessary if sex is evolved [sic] in the equation? Do you believe that consent is ever unnecessary if sex is in the equation? >I feel your objection to coercion might be an objection to capitalism Absolutely, but the difference between capitalism and sex work is that we haven't been able to come up with a better (or less bad) economic system than the former. Sex work, on the other hand, doesn't have to exist.### Assistant: You avoided his main point and just pulled snippets out of the text.

### Human: CMV: The Warhammer 40k Orcs are simply obnoxious and the universe would be better off without them.### Assistant: Orks provide many things to the 40k Universe. 1. As you mentioned a source of comic relief. 2. The orks are able to be used as a constant threat without need for further plot. If eldar/chaos/tau etc show up it is because of some deep far reaching scheme. If orks show up its because they are orks and wanna stomp on things. 3. Orks were the one Empire/Enemy that was truly defeated and dethroned by Humanity. At the point of this campaign the Tau are not even contacted by the ethereals, the necrons and eldar are long scattered and not a major power, chaos has yet to raise its head as the true threat it is, and the tyranids won't be here for thousands of more years. The only thing standing in the way of Humanities inevitable conquest of the galaxy are the orks. The Ullanor campaign was the greatest triumph the Empire manages to have. 4.They represent an aspect of humanity that is often overlooked. Each of the races and their paths focus on a separate part of humanity. Chaos, or need for beings to worship represent our fear and subjugation to change/death and disease/pleasure and pain/bloodthirst. The Tau represent our inner communists and the idea that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts. The eldar and dark eldar represent the memory of how the past was greater, more elegant, more refined and intelligent, but under closer examination is just as brutal and simplistic as we always are and have been. The orks though, the orks are the sheer joy we have in being strong, the satisfaction that comes only through finding a worthy opponent and winning, then going out and looking for another more worthy opponent. Orks represent a piece of humanity that no other faction does.### Human: Great post! 1. I can accept comedic relief, but maybe the immersion in an otherwise ultra-grim dark science fiction universe takes too much of a blow by the extreme, over-the-top cornyness of the orks. 2. While I can see value in that from a gameplay-focused point of view, it just encourages lazy storywriting. 3. Interesting lore detail, really, but not really an argument. 4. I like this point. It just makes for a really shallow species/enemy, though.### Assistant: 4 does mean that they are the only winner in this clusterfuck (they live for war and they have it) and because of that they are happy (and laugh).### Human: I've always just headcanoned it that the reason that the WH40k plot doesn't advance is because of the ork gestalt field. They've won, this is what they want and this is what they assume will always happen, so it does.### Assistant: That's better than the alternative of having a plot that has remained stagnant for almost 30 years for no reason.### Human: It hasn't really moved onward because GW didn't really want to change too much by taking out an entire race/changing one race too much so they only change some small bits of plot here and there. I would really like to see something mayor, maybe the emperor die--**BAM!!** **DIE HERETIC SCUM! THE EMPEROR IS ETERNAL!**### Assistant: > taking out an entire race It's not like they've ever done that before...### Human: RIP squats

### Human: CMV: "Fake news" is quickly becoming a thought-terminating cliché that is usurping the place of meaningful discussion of news reliability### Assistant: >"Fake news" essentially didn't exist as a term in public discourse until after the election: That's primarily because it was assumed that inconsequentially few people took the likes of Alex Jones seriously, and that the nonsense viral news spread on Facebook would never have an effect on serious discourse. Now that those assumptions have been proven wrong, it's necessary to call fabricated and deliberately propagated stories what they are: fake news. In earlier times we might have called it agitprop or just propaganda, but "Fake News" seems appropriate when we're discussing information deliberately constructed to look like legitimate journalism. >It's a binary term: It is, but that doesn't mean we grade all media by that term. For example: Fox News and MSNBC both have strong propagandistic elements in their coverage, and all 24 hour networks regularly relay glaring factual errors in pursuit of fast coverage - but we don't call them fake news because we understand that they're trying to convey true information, even if it passes through their lens. Fake News connotes deliberate fabrication or the inexcusable failure to check even the most basic facts. We're talking about sites that took the "threat" of Jade Helm seriously and inflamed fears despite there being zero evidence for the ominous claim. About people who thought the repainting of F/A-18's in aggressor colors was proof of an imminent false flag bombing. About people who needed to "spread the word" about UN vehicles stockpiled in Maryland for the coming globalist takeover...outside the plant where they were built. These were but a few stories passed along by a cloud of obscure and unaccountable websites where there was clearly no attempt to check anything, yet they were repeatedly passed off as journalism in certain spheres. That *is* fake news. I agree that there ought to be a spectrum of news sources that view similar facts through different lenses - I think we largely have that. I think reading the Washington Post and the Washington Times in the same sitting can be beneficial for anyone interested in American politics, and I hope that Fox News sobers up and tries to be less of a cartoon so that conservative ideas can be more adroitly articulated and addressed. Much of the anger in conservative America came from the fact that their beliefs and ideas were being dismissed by a media that progressively failed to hear them by excluding them, and if that can be mitigated and avoided going forward, we can have honest and productive discussion through a diverse media. But that *only works* if the people involved are operating on good faith. Russia Times, Sputnik, and Alex Jones aren't doing that, so we should exclude them from the conversation by calling them fake news.### Human: When they first started talking about fake news I 100% thought they were talking about how CNN cut that girl's interview in half to make it look like she was shouting for peace when she was really telling black people to storm white neighborhoods during the Castillo memorial riots. Or when NBC cut that Trump staffer's quote in half to push the lie about the Muslim registry. Or when Anderson cut the video of Hillary blacking out (presumably from guilt) on 9/11 to make it look like she tripped stepping off a curb instead of being dragged into the van like she had information that would lead to Hillary's arrest. Or when they told people it was illegal to look at the WikiLeaks. Or when they told people the WikiLeaks were Russian lies. Or how they had the convenient camera angles to make it look like more than 12 people were attending Hillary rallies. It honestly took more than a week for me to realize that they were talking about unsourced Facebook images. I thought they were talking about each other.### Assistant: "NBC cut that Trump staffer's quote in half to push the lie about the Muslim registry" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/ >[ Audio link](http://theticket.tumblr.com/post/133614895582/here-is-the-excerpt-of-yahoo-news-interview-with) "We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago," Trump said. > > The Yahoo reporter then asked Trump, "Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?" > > Trump responded, "We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully." > > Here, Trump didn’t reject the idea of a Muslim registry, but he also didn’t give an affirmative "yes" that he wanted to create such a database. More: > [Another video link](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716): The next day, an MSNBC reporter asked Trump, "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?" > > "There should be a lot of systems," Trump responded. "Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." So in short, no, he would not rule out a database on all Muslims, meaning he thinks it's a possiblity. He's slippery on the subject- but refusing to rule something out and then someone equating it to him allowing is sensationalising- not fake. Why is it that you only focus on info that is associated with your view? Try to see the broader picture, like the fact you ignore Fox News [over](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/13/nation/na-hannity-crowd13) and [over](http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/media/sean-hannity-michelle-obama-hillary-clinton-fake-news/) and [over](http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/12/06/51407/fnc-tucker-20161205-fakenews) and [over](http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/17/fox-news-intelligence-expert-lied-about-working-for-the-cia/) and [over](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/sean-hannity-trump-media-access-231798) and [over](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/megyn_kelly_trump_s_lawyer_threatened_me_seemed_ok_with_me_getting_physically.html) and [over](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/08/fox-news-wrongly-links-republican-anti-trump-protester-austyn-crites-to-voter) and[ over](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/2016/11/04/8fd56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=sm_tw) and [over](http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/the-fbi-isnt-indicting-hillary-clinton-over-the-clinton-foundation-but-fox-news-wants-you-to-think-it-is/) for lying or misrepresenting information. Again, I'm not sure why I'm holding a guy by the name of DicksOutForHillary to account, as you've previously neglected to engage with fact and ignore reality, but still. Best not to let other people get caught in your lies.### Human: > We're not going to have a registry based on a religion. - Reinhold Richard "Reince" Priebus Though I'm not sure why I would hold anyone with the username "mirageasndmirrors" to any kind of standard of truth, but facts are facts whether they fit your narrative or not.### Assistant: You're ignoring the actual president in favour of the chief of staff. That's a bit of a leap there. Why are you so willing to ignore the audio and the video I have presented? Do you think it faked in some way? As for my user name, it has everything to do with[ One Hundred Years of Solitude](http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/solitude/quotes.html), not political. You'll notice my account predates the election by years. Ironically, you're the one ignoring the facts that ignore your narrative, as other redditors and our previous exchange points out. Being able to read and digest and accept facts that don't accept your narrative is critical to being a thoughtful citizen, as we need to be able to take politicians and media to account. Your original post above about how the general main media lied or distorted the truth shows you do have critical thinking skills, but you *choose* not to use them when the facts don't fit your narrative. Worse, you don't even attempt to explain them away- you just divert to talking about something else. I am perfectly willing to admit that the media did a crap job this election, and probably actually led to a racist, sexist asshole being elected over far more qualified republican candidates. His cabinet is a who's who of history's greatest regrets, including an old timey racist (Sessions), a current timey racist (Flynn), a worldwide wresting federation billionaire for small business (McMahon), a climate change denier who wants to destroy the EPA to head the EPA (Pruitt), a guy who endorses torture for homeland security (Kelly) and another torture avocate for the CIA (Pompeo), the former chairman of Goldman Sachs as the treasury secretary (Mnchuin), and as chief strategist, the former head of Brietbart, an agency that lies so much about news and peddles consipracy theories so hard that Google is thinking about banning it.

### Human: CMV:people calling for President Obama to call it what it is "Islamic Terrorism" is useless and even counter productive.### Assistant: The term Jihad is an inherently Islamic word as it is the sixth pillar of Islam. All Muslims are required to practice Jihad, but the interpretation of what Jihad means is controversial to many Muslims. In calling them "Radical Jihadists" he has used a more specific term of calling them "Radical Muslims". It is correct in it's usage. So anyone complaining that he is not calling the "Radical Muslims" simply does not understand that he is labling them as such. -------- The only better term might be to call them "Radical Mujahideen" which is the word for "a Muslim who is practicing Jihad".### Human: "Radical Jihadis" is the correct term. I don't know where this stupid "Jihadist" crap came from. Are they practicing the art of jihad or something?### Assistant: I don't think *jihadi* would be the correct word actually. It's not more valid than *jihadist,* anyway. We've just sort of assumed it is, cos all them foreign words end in I, right? Jihad is Arabic for struggle and *one who struggles* would be *mujahid,* not *jihadi.*### Human: Well it's not an arabic word, but it's been used to mean mujahadeen for a long time now.### Assistant: Sure. I'm just pointing out that it's weird to rail against the word *jihadist* when *jihadi* is no more valid, being a kind of pseudo Arabic English word. Both are equally common in the papers where I am.### Human: Jihadi was the original and it sounds better.### Assistant: That's your own personal preference.### Human: It's the well-established term.### Assistant: The BBC says jihadist, mate.

### Human: CMV: The presence of a disproportional racial disparity is not enough to prove "systemic racism."### Assistant: It all depends on the specific of the statement. For example, look at the study that found that resumes with black sounding names were less likely to get interview calls than resumes with white sounding names. They even found that the strength of the resume affected outcomes less for the black sounding names than for the white sounding names. In other words, despite the actual quality of the applicant, people with black sounding names were getting far fewer call backs. That is pretty strong evidence of a systemic bias in hiring practice. I guess I'm saying that when there is actual evidence behind the disproportion being connected to race, it is legitimite to raise the disproportion as a potential systemic issue.### Human: For anyone still citing that study: I urge you to actually look at the data they gathered. First off, the names used were ones traditionally associated with "ghetto" people, while the "white" names were completely regular, everyday names. It's buried way down in the study, but the names they compared were "white" names like Emily and Sarah, Neil and Geoffrey, while the "black" names were Keisha and Latoya, Tremayne and Tyrone. The former are fairly "normal" names that you would expect to see on someone of any race, they're not exactly specifically associated with white people. It would be far more honest to compare names typically associated with trailer park denizens to the "black" names they chose, as they are ones that are typically associated with people in the ghetto, rather than common, every-day names (Those would be the ones marked as "white" names). What the study *actually* showed was that your name absolutely has an effect on how many callbacks you get on a job, but it has more to do with whether your name is seen as "normal" and "respectable" than anything. I bet that if the "white" names they chose were more along the lines of Cristal and Jazmyn, we'd see a much smaller disparity. Also worth noting is how big the disparities within each name category were - some "black" names actually scored higher than most of the "white" names, and there was a huge internal difference between the different names. Return rate for Rasheed was 3 %, compared to 11.3 % for Jermaine. On the "white" side, Neil was 6.6 % and Brad was 15.9 %. And so on. Racism is a thing, and it is a problem, but that's not what this study shows, and it's a terrible example for people to keep using.### Assistant: I Have looked at the study. The authors specifically note that "we find little evidence of employers inferring something different than race, such as social class, from the names." in other words, the authors do not come to the same conclusions as you do. Your assumption that this has to do with" ghetto names" is completely unfounded in the data. Specifically, if your hypothesis was correct, you would expect that living in an affluent area to narrow the gap between black and white candidates. It did not. Even more interesting, if you actually read the study you would know that the authors conducted a followup analysis taking into account the social background characteristics of the names based on economic and educational characteristics of the names. They were able to compare high social status and low social status names separately for whites and blacks to determine if social status influenced whites and blacks equally. Their findings did not reveal evidence that the racial difference could be explained by social background. No study is perfect but they went out of there way to examine and control for these potential confounds. In other words, while I'm sure race isn't the only thing at play here, the data strongly suggests that the other things at play don't account for the differences we see due to race. Finally, this is far from the only study to have found this pattern. It has been replicated numerous times and when varying factors that could have accounted for this difference. If you are genuinely interested, I would be happy to dig them up, as well as related research on race issues related to housing and other issues. Frankly, I think it is humorous that you raise this study as a bad example when they went to such lengths to specifically examine and control for as many potential confounds as possible.### Human: The problem is that what you label as "white names" are simply the names that are common to all races within American culture. If you want truly "white names", you'd have to go with something like Patrick O'Mahon that's specifically associated with a certain culture and not generally used. > Specifically, if your hypothesis was correct, you would expect that living in an affluent area to narrow the gap between black and white candidates. It did not. My "hypothesis" (It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation that they're not actually doing this correctly, but whatever) is that it's more about the type of names than race. It's unaffected by this - people are biased against certain names because they have negative associations, whether fair or not. > Even more interesting, if you actually read the study Oh, wonderful. > you would know that the authors conducted a followup analysis taking into account the social background characteristics of the names based on economic and educational characteristics of the names. They were able to compare high social status and low social status names separately for whites and blacks to determine if social status influenced whites and blacks equally. Yeah, I know, that's in the table too. [This](http://i.imgur.com/psEYuki.png) is the table I'm referring to. As you can clearly see from the table, there's a huge gap in the social background of the "black" and the "white" names here, going by the mother's education level that they chose to use. > Frankly, I think it is humorous that you raise this study as a bad example when they went to such lengths to specifically examine and control for as many potential confounds as possible. The names they picked for the two groups are a fundamental flaw of the study, though. It would be like if you had a contest about who could run faster, white people or black people, and you had all the black people in the contest be overweight and middle-aged, while you had all the white people be college athletes. None of the controls they did to avoid skewing the result can make up for the fact that they skewed the result from the start through the names they chose to pick. I'd think that there are more black people named Laurie than Latoya - yet the study pegs the former as a "white" name and uses the latter as a typical example of a "black" name. Do you not see how there's a fundamental flaw in the study here? Again, I'm not denying racism existing, I don't think anyone with half a brain is. I'm saying it's a bad study that gets way more credit than it deserves. Again, look at the table I linked. Their methodology is horribly flawed, based on the names chosen. Actually conducting such a study would *require* using the same names and then actually having people to act as "candidates", of several age and social groups, and both races. It would be much more extensive than what they did here.### Assistant: You didn't address the fact that there is no difference in how social status of the names affects call backs between black and white groups. In other words, the results found that even though social status affected call backs, it doesn't do so different depending on names. Thus, even after accounting for social status there is still a signicant effect of name on call backs. This is of course why the authors conclude that other factors, such as the social status of the name, did not account for the difference seen between black and white names. Also, you are ignoring my comment that this is only one of several studies examining this issue, all of which find a similar pattern of results. Why completely ignore that part of my post? Unless of course your goal is to nitpick the possible weaknesses in one study rather than to judge the literature for what it is as a whole. A literature that has consistently found that race adversely affects one's ability to apply for things. So I'll ask again. What about the fact that not only did the authors do their best to control for these issues, but that other investigations have yielded similar findings with different designs and even using different outcomes, such as housing?

### Human: CMV: In the Harry Potter editions of Top Trumps, Voldemort repeatedly being given 0 for 'courage' is a misrepresentation of his character### Assistant: > The only other explanation is that by 'courage' Top Trumps means something more in line with 'nobility' or 'morals'. This would probably make marginally more sense, but would still be lacking. Well under the classical definition of courage, one has to be motivated by the good in order for the action to be considered courageous. Therefore, Voldemort is not courageous as all of his actions are motivated by a lust for power and a fear of death.### Human: Though that wouldn't explain Bellatrix and Umbridge having the courage scores they do. And also your classical definition brings up an entirely different debate on objective 'good'. If Voldemort truly believed his actions were good, would that then make them courageous?### Assistant: > Though that wouldn't explain Bellatrix and Umbridge having the courage scores they do. Well it looks like 20 is around the baseline so Bellatrix is not very courageous. As far as Umbridge goes, she is operating towards what she believes is the good (in OotP) but is lacking due to a defect in knowledge. Also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed. > And also you're classical definition brings up an entirely different debate on objective 'good'. Not really. Top Trumps is the ultimate arbiter here and therefore they get to decide what is objectively good. > If Voldemort truly believed his actions were good, would that then make them courageous? Based on his depiction in the novels I think it is very apparent that that is not what he believed. Also, if he did believe that his actions were good, then he would be seriously mentally ill, and thus not virtuous under a classical sense.### Human: > Also, her courage levels are pretty low compared to any of the protagonists you listed. In the PoA versions, Boggarts have 35 and dementors have 40 for courage. They're absolutely not carrying out their actions based on 'good'. I don't think intelligence or sentience is a possible counter point either; dementors are shown to be deliberate about what they do and are able to understand that it's better for them to side with Voldemort than to stick with the Ministry.### Assistant: > In the PoA versions, Boggarts have 35 and dementors have 40 for courage. Well those are odd classifications I don't know how you could say that Boggarts are courageous under any definition. Sounds like the whole numbers are just more or less arbitrary then.

### Human: CMV: There is nothing wrong with casting a black actress in a traditionally white role.### Assistant: I would argue that Hermione isn't a traditionally white role. Her race is never mentioned in the books, she just happens to be played by a white actress in the films. However, there absolutely are cases where using a black actor would usually be inappropriate. What about Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird? He's a white lawyer who defends a black man in the racially segregated south. The only way I could imagine it working is if you did a "colour negative" production, where all the white roles are played by black actors and vice versa.### Human: Well, I would say her appearances on the covers of the books themselves is another point since those are commissioned specifically for the product rather than an adaptation.### Assistant: It's not rare for authors to have no say at all about cover art. Or that they get input, but the publisher ultimately decides. So hypothetically, Rowling could have said "why don't you make Hermione black on the covers, wouldn't that be nice?" and the publisher could've said "You haven't described her as such and it would sell worse, so no, she'll be white on the covers". I doubt that was said, but ... it's also likely it was never a conscious choice, really.### Human: Yeah, Ursula K. Le Guin had issues with her non-white characters in Earthsea being depicted as white (including in the Ghibli animated adaptation) and Terry Pratchett went on record several times saying that the cover artist wouldn't stop depicting Granny Weatherwax as cronelike even though he specifically intended the character to look handsome and unlike your traditional old witch.### Assistant: Yeah! I thought about Earthsea, among other things. Where it's even worse, since she intentionally set the books in a place with non-white characters, iirc.

### Human: Drunk women are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. CMV.### Assistant: I think part of the problem here is that you are assuming that all drunk sex is equal. Technically anyone intoxicated is not capable of consenting to sex, but I've had plenty of sex while drunk and I don't consider any of it rape. You're right, I knew exactly what I was doing and there is no one else responsible as they were fully my actions. Now let's say a girl has been drinking heavily, she has reached the point where she is no longer making rational decisions, and she likely won't remember anything else that happens that night. If a guy talks her into going home and sleeping with him, he is having sex with someone with no real capacity to consent. Maybe someone else will tell me I'm wrong, but I see it as a spectrum. On one side, having sex with a person after one drink is by no means wrong. On the other side, having sex with someone so drunk they can't sit up is on a similar level with holding them down and raping them. In both instances they lack the agency to say no. Following from that, sex after two drinks is probably fine but sex with someone too drunk to remember having met you the next morning is still pretty rapey.### Human: The part that's not getting mentioned much ITT is mutual drunkeness. Lot's of "She's too drunk to know what she's doing" examples, but how about the much more likely example of, "Both guy and girl have been tying it on at the bar all night, leave together, and have sex while intoxicated. The next morning Girl has a WTF-Did-I-Do? case of the Regretsies and accuses Guy of rape. Now please tell me how: * Girl was too drunk to be held accountable * Guy was just as drunk but IS accountable This is the scenario that is much more realistic and likely to happen and it needs to be addressed.### Assistant: The way I see it (and this is just how I, and a few of my friends who hold similar views, reason it, but I really think it's a fairly decent working model) gender doesn't matter. I know that it doesn't play out this way in court, but just ethically speaking, anyone can be too intoxicated to consent, and men can be raped by women, and women can be raped by women, and men can be raped by men, and non-binary people, etc, and what constitutes consent should be the same for everyone. This does lead to a weird situation where two people can both be too drunk to consent, and if they hook up, you kinda just have to see it as neither person consented so its possible that they've both experience sexual assault, without either of them being responsible as the "perpetrator"? It's a fucked up situation, and I have no idea how it would be handled legally, but I think on the whole everything would be much better if we'd just hold everyone to the same standard for consent, cause the way we do things now is really damaging.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I think the core problem is that there are no perfectly defined boundaries in these cases. Take your example of two kids having sex. A 15 year old having sex with a 9 year old might be an imbalance, but at what point does it become balanced? What about a 12.5 year old having sex with a 9 year old? Is that imbalanced? I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that when cases like this go to court, the two parties would just be trying to convince the jury that they were either more drunk than the other person, or too drunk to make rational decisions.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: I believe that abortion is always wrong because life begins at conception. CMV### Assistant: Conception is a process, not a distinct point in time. The process of conception involves many chemical reactions and processes. It is not an instantaneous occurrence so who's to say when the jumping off point is? If you believe human life begins at any given point in conception (for arguments sake I'm going to assume you mean when the sperm and egg first meet) then abortion after conception is murder in your eyes I take it? Murder = Death. However death is currently held to be the cessation of electrical activity in the brain. Some suggest that death actually occurs at the point where irreversible cognitive damage has occurred (e.g. such that the brain is no longer capable of sustaining the body's functions). But for the sake of argument, we will suppose that death occurs when there is no more electrical activity in the brain. If death is the cessation of electrical activity in the brain, life must be the beginning of electrical activity in the brain. There is no brain where electrical activity can occur at conception; therefore a newly conceived organism with no brain is not alive as meant by "human life." In response to your added point; If a fully functioning human being, with all the rights associated with that status, is involved in an accident they can be kept in a state of biological life via medical machinery almost indefinitely. However, it is generally accepted that if there is no cerebral brain wave activity then there is no “human life” in the moral sense. Turning off the life support machines is not murder but simply the deactivation of biological processes sustained by external means. Should we keep everyone on life support alive indefinitely just because they have potential (however large or small) for life? Having established that human life, in the moral sense, requires cerebral brain wave activity which a fetus does not have until 24 to 30 weeks, this means that a fetus younger than this is not a human life in the ethical sense and can have no more right to life than the body kept warm on a life support machine. The woman having an abortion is no more guilty of murder than the doctor who turns off the life support machine of a brain dead accident victim.### Human: My apologies, there is a third element I neglected to include in the OP.### Assistant: I edited to include your third point in my original answer :)### Human: Thanks! I agree that if the fetus were going to be in the woman's body *indefinitely* in an early state, it would simply be akin to removing life support from a vegetable. But given that it's going to improve, it's like a person who's on life support now, but whose brain is healing - and wouldn't offing that person be wrong, or even murder? That's where I'm at here.### Assistant: Biology commits abortion almost as much as humans. A fetus without brain activity is no more certain to be born than a man recovering from a coma. The natural rate of miscarriages is something to be considered-- it changes the whole diagram from "Something that will be a human life" to "Something that isn't human yet, and may never be".

### Human: I can't see any logic in the anarchist ideology. Educate me and CMV### Assistant: The basic premise of anarchism is that [no one has any right to be obeyed nor duty to obey](http://www.ditext.com/wolff/anarchy.html). Keep that in mind while I try to answer your questions. I'm not going to try to convince you to be an anarchist, instead I'm trying to show that there is a lot of thought behind anarchism. I think I should start out by talking about what anarchism is not. The term has been poisoned by people in power because the basic premise denies their right to power. Anarchy is not chaos, (I have started to use the term anarchism instead of anarchy because the word has been tainted. I'm sure others have done the same, I don't mean to take credit.) an anarchist society has rules and order, there are still political, social, and economic organizations, all that stuff is still there. The difference is that nobody has any *right* to be in charge, those who are managers or CEO's hold those positions because those under them deem them worthy and permit it. Anarchism is a very diverse school of thought and is widely misunderstood, even by those who call themselves anarchists. (I'm probably one of them.) Fundamentally it's all about liberty and how we can maximize the liberty of everyone on this planet, that's it. The question then is how we can go about doing that. Anarchists have an enormous range of answers to that question so I'm not going to try to go through them. However the question of government is central and it sounds like that's the crux of your questions. The state has been taken as a given ~~for almost all of human existence~~ since human civilization began. There have always been rulers and those who are being ruled, we generally see it as natural. Anarchism challenges that belief. I think a fair analogy would be to religion; atheism is to ~~deism~~ theism as anarchism is to statism. Anarchists believe that the state does more harm than good. A common response is that the state is a necessary evil, well it strikes me as way too evil to be necessary. Looking back through all of human history, what parts of society declare war? Who actually does the fighting? Who reaps the rewards? It's always, *always,* the wealthy and powerful telling the poor and powerless to go kill each other. Those wealthy and powerful people then gain more wealth and power, though they'll sometimes disperse a little to the lower classes to keep them from revolting. You're question is why do we need to eliminate the state. Right now it seems like we need it because our economy is fucked, our schools and civic infrastructure are falling apart, the healthcare system is broken, climate change is spiraling out of control, etc. Yeah, but who was in control while all that was happening? We've been convinced that we're incapable of governing ourselves, that we need someone in charge to keep everyone in line. But who told us that? What about asking the question 'why do we need a state in the first place?' Which leads to your next question. >If you have a power vacuum how do you stop the person with the most guns taking over? The question of warlords is a serious flaw in anarchist thought though. An anarchist society would have a harder time fending off a warlord than a society with a strong state. There isn't really a solid answer to that criticism, however that alone should not lead you to dismiss anarchism as illogical. Every political philosophy or ideology has flaws, it comes down to which set of problems you would rather deal with. Personally, I think we need to do away will all power structures entirely, this just happens to include the state. When people are in positions of power they come to think that [they deserve it](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/daily_videos/scientists-study-the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality/), even if their power is completely arbitrary. It makes people heartless and callous towards others. By allowing a state to exist, we are allowing a power structure to exist which holds a near total monopoly on the use of violence. Look at the direction our government is taking us in right now. Universal surveillance, perpetual warfare, militarized police, two-tiered legal systems, etc etc etc. People in power are trying to stay in power, and if that means fucking over the rest of us then so be it. ~~Government~~ The state is too dangerous to exist, I find the risks of a stateless society to be much more palatable than the risk of more astounding atrocities which have been perpetrated by governments in the past.### Human: I'm still a little skeptical. How would you maintain order and political, social, and economic organizations while doing away with power structures? These organizations exist by giving people power over each other.### Assistant: The basic principle is that no one should have power over anyone else. We would have to completely reimagine most of our political and social institutions to fit that principle. Political, social, and economic order would be maintained solely on their merit. If they're no good then they'll fall apart, but that is ok and often a good thing because if they're maintained by violating people's right then they shouldn't exist in the first place.### Human: I'm a poli-sci hobbyist person, and I have plenty of issues with anarchism that lead me to believe it is unrealistic and not an ideal system for human organization, but I respect the rigor and enthusiasm that many of the advocates like you bring to your conception of political philosophy. So here's one of my big questions I always come to with the ideology. Let's say I am a murderer in an anarchist society--I make it my hobby to go around killing people. Obviously, I am breaking the NAP, and insofar as the people I'm killing are concerned, they'd be well within their rights to defend themselves from me. They just happen to be unlucky in that I'm a really good murderer, so they're never able to do that successfully. How then do other members of the society respond? Do they have the right to take action against me if I've never voluntarily agreed to any sort of contract granting them the right to pursue justice against me? If I am not threatening them directly, then on what grounds can they take action against me? Wouldn't imprisoning or executing me in and of itself violate the NAP? I suppose you might say that they could do that and say that they're "enforcing" the tenets of the NAP on me for the sake of the people I've killed. But if you ask me, in doing that, all they're doing is assuming the role of a primitive type of justice system, just one that happens to be more ad hoc than the bureaucratic ones that state societies employ. But whatever you call it, they still have to assume some sort of authority that is problematic for anarchist ideals in order to deal with me. Unless they can catch me in the act of murder and kill me in a way that could be argued to be a direct enforcement of the NAP, then any other action against me would be a contradiction of their own philosophical tenets, because I could claim that they're using force against me against my consent. This example is I think just one among many that illustrate how the lack of a justice system in the sense that state societies employ would be a source of tremendous social disorder and unrest in any anarchist society. Thanks for your thoughts :)### Assistant: At the least, if you're a known serial killer, people would make an effort to inform others about who you are so that they know not to help you and be ready to defend themselves if you come around. Also, anarchism isn't necessarily pacifist, and people will still have no problem using deadly force against you when you try to kill them. What I imagine is that people would form organizations similar to neighborhood watches, and if there is a known threat like you in the area they would be well armed and ready to defend their communities from you. But really, I don't know how you can defend states as necessary to prevent mass murder when states are more capable of mass murder than any other organization, with little to no accountability, and are responsible for the largest slaughter fests humanity has ever seen. At least [170 million people](http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st211.pdf) have been killed by their own governments in the twentieth century, and that's not even including wars.### Human: I'm not arguing that state societies are necessary to prevent murder--obviously anyone with a gun or a knife or a bit of self-defense training can make efforts to defend their life. I might think that states generally do it better, with the guarantee of police forces and the deterrents inherent in the criminal justice system, but that's beside the point, because I recognize that even without a state, you could indeed still have a private defense contractor or a neighborhood watch or just your trusty old shotgun if nothing else. What I'm arguing is that most states have an obvious mechanism for providing *justice*, and as far as I understand it, anarchist societies do not. I think you actually illustrated this, in that all of your examples paralleled mine--they're all people taking reactionary measures, doing their best to defend against violations of the NAP in the moment. But basic defense and justice aren't the same thing. What happens if I successfully kill a bunch of people, and then I just *stop* and decide to return to a mundane life? If I'm not actively attacking you, what can you do? Can you kill me in the street because you know I murdered people in the past? Can you preemptively murder me because someone else told you I'm a killer? Can you imprison me on the belief that I'm a danger to the populace? What gives you the *right* to take action against me? I haven't given you my consent to carry out justice against me, so anything you do that isn't a direct attempt to defend yourself against me is a violation of the NAP, is it not? The desire for justice and vengeance is inborn in people, and for that reason justice systems tend to be things that almost every society develops. But how do you construct a justice system when your society is based on the idea that you're not allowed to use force against anyone except to defend against force yourself? Also, this is tangential, but I think your statistic is disingenuous, because you are less likely to die a violent death today than you are at literally any other point in human history, despite the fact that state societies are more powerful, omnipresent, and engrained in the world than in any previous era. People died violent deaths far, far more frequently in societies with weaker or non-existent states, so I do not think that is an argument in your favor.### Assistant: Okay, I think I see what you are saying. >What happens if I successfully kill a bunch of people, and then I just stop and decide to return to a mundane life? If everybody knew you killed a bunch of people, why would they help you or associate with you? You'd be a social outcast at the very least. >Can you imprison me on the belief that I'm a danger to the populace? What gives you the right to take action against me? I haven't given you my consent to carry out justice against me, so anything you do that isn't a direct attempt to defend yourself against me is a violation of the NAP, is it not? What gives the state the right to do this? Really, it will be up to conventions decided by various organizations or communities. If you argue that there will not be uniform laws about how to deal with murderers over large areas, then yes that's probably true. But of course that's true of different legal jurisdictions, the difference is that justice would be administered by smaller voluntary organizations instead of larger coerced ones. I'll also add that left-wing anarchists don't usually appeal to the NAP as understood by libertarians, they are mostly concerned with hierarchies. So I'm guessing many of them wouldn't have a problem with retributive justice since it merely a reaction to another person trying to establish hierarchy. A stateless society based on the NAP/libertarianism might have some sort of [polycentric legal system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law) for providing justice. David Friedman explains the basics of how one might work in [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o), but there are many detailed texts on the subject. I also think there might be some sort of "voluntary" prison system, where people who have been ostracized from the rest of society can go to be rehabilitated and pay off their debts. Another question to ask would be, how do statist systems really provide justice? Sure, they are called justice systems, but are they actually just? How is it just to tax the innocent citizens to pay for the imprisonment of criminals? How is it just that someone might be wrongly executed or imprisoned for a crime they did not commit (or for victimless "crimes") and those responsible get away scott free? How is it just that state officials and other elites are able to commit huge crimes and not be held accountable for them? I will certainly not pretend that a stateless society would be able to perfectly serve justice, but to me statist systems are by their very nature unjust anyways. I also use words like "might" and "could," because I don't claim to know how free people will organize to provide justice. So if you want to know for sure how justice would be provided, then of course I could not tell you. >Also, this is tangential, but I think your statistic is disingenuous, because you are less likely to die a violent death today than you are at literally any other point in human history, despite the fact that state societies are more powerful, omnipresent, and engrained in the world than in any previous era. People died violent deaths far, far more frequently in societies with weaker or non-existent states, so I do not think that is an argument in your favor. Can I see a source for this? I don't think it's necessarily untrue, but I would wager that merely having a higher standard of living might have a lot to do with it. I cannot see how any organization would be able to commit violence on the levels that states do, because large scale violence is costly and usually unprofitable, unless one is able to offload the cost onto its citizens through taxes as the state does.

### Human: CMV: Fear over A.I., "artificial intelligence" and super-smart computers that could destroy mankind is dramatic hyperbole and fearmongering.### Assistant: > Where is there any evidence that there are actually any super-smart computers that can come anywhere near the capacity of the human brain? This is like asking "where is the evidence that we can eventually build drone robots similar to the maneuvering, speed, and durability of bees?" Well, if bees themselves could do it, then it's by definition *possible*. From then on, it's just an engineering problem, a matter of replicating materials in sufficient imitative detail. So is it with AI and a human brain. We *know* that a brain-sized pile of atoms are capable of transmitting enough data to produce reasoning, it's just a matter of imitating it. Wit AI, the threat is that due to the exponential growth of our information technology, it might not just be a theoretical potential that a savant inventor may or may not stumble upon, but a necessity of increasing raw computing power in the next few decades.### Human: I'd also add that computers have been able to store more memory, calculate quickly, and solve problems faster than humans have been able to for decades. Sure there's plasticity in the brain, but there are many ways in which modern computers (and old computers) are more powerful than the human brain.### Assistant: >Sure there's plasticity in the brain, but there are many ways in which modern computers (and old computers) are more powerful than the human brain. More *useful* maybe, but in terms of raw computing power the human brain still wins by a landslide. It's just that we can't input instructions nearly as precisely.### Human: Regardless of how powerful the brain is, we as users only have access to a small percentage of it.### Assistant: >we as users only have access to a small percentage of it. Huh?### Human: Our brains may be extremely powerful, but most functions are outside conscious control. If you actually want to compute something, you are better off using a computer, even though your brain technically has more computing power.### Assistant: No one is arguing against a computer being more capable of number crunching, it's what it's designed for. Just like no one is arguing that a fork is worse for picking up hot things than your fingers. But humans are so much more than a single tool it's not even worth the comparison.

### Human: CMV: Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful. It should have no place in modern society.### Assistant: > I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle. How about the argument that social norms surrounding not having sex before marriage will produce more stable families and better lives for children? Certainly the argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative. But it's also got a reasoned thought process behind it in terms of outcomes for families and children. Also I don't know how advocating that young people don't have sex before marriage is unconstitutional. Certainly such advocacy would be speech protected by the first amendment, no?### Human: A rational argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative, but I've never heard one and you haven't yet provided it. I know that socially conservative people *say* it's better to abstain before getting married, but that's not enough to be a rational basis for laws. What *is* the reasoned thought process behind it? That's the exact kind of thing I made this post to hear: the thought process behind socially conservative viewpoints. Advocacy is, as you say, protected speech under the same amendment I quoted. But advocacy is not the same thing as legislation. Someone who counsels youth to abstain from sex before marriage is expressing a viewpoint. It's not a viewpoint that tends to lead to better outcomes ([1](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pamela_Kohler/publication/5505124_Abstinence-Only_and_Comprehensive_Sex_Education_and_the_Initiation_of_Sexual_Activity_and_Teen_Pregnancy/links/0deec5176c9a610b17000000.pdf), [2](http://thecommunityguide.org/hiv/AE_CRR_Evidence_Review.pdf)), but it's still free speech. I would defend anyone's right to be heard, even when I disagree. What I'm condemning isn't advocacy for a socially conservative viewpoint, but legislating morality. It's one thing to say, "Hey, it's better to have sex only with your opposite sex partner once you are married and with no one else". It's quite another to make premarital sex illegal.### Assistant: >A rational argument for abstinence before marriage is socially conservative, but I've never heard one and you haven't yet provided it. I know that socially conservative people say it's better to abstain before getting married, but that's not enough to be a rational basis for laws. What is the reasoned thought process behind it? That's the exact kind of thing I made this post to hear: the thought process behind socially conservative viewpoints. There are numerous studies linking promiscuity, earlier sexual activity, number of unique sexual partners, etc to adverse affects such as future failed marriages, depression and STDs. Are you just asking for some of those studies? Or are you asking for the "thought process" behind the position? Because the thought process for things like promiscuity and extra marital sex is pretty simple: promiscuous sex puts you at greater risk of STDs, for obvious reasons. It also devalues the bonding experience of sex when you engage in it frequently with multiple partners. You're in an exposed, vulnerable state, and that vulnerability coupled with a loving and serious relationship can forge a very deep and long lasting connection. I personally am not a very sentimental person. I don't hug my parents or my siblings. I avoid giving and receiving personal compliments. However, I am *extremely* close to and affectionate with my wife. >Advocacy is, as you say, protected speech under the same amendment I quoted. But advocacy is not the same thing as legislation. Someone who counsels youth to abstain from sex before marriage is expressing a viewpoint. It's not a viewpoint that tends to lead to better outcomes (1, 2), but it's still free speech. I would defend anyone's right to be heard, even when I disagree. What I'm condemning isn't advocacy for a socially conservative viewpoint, but legislating morality. It's one thing to say, "Hey, it's better to have sex only with your opposite sex partner once you are married and with no one else". It's quite another to make premarital sex illegal. The first source you just posted is regarding abstinence ONLY education, which is not relevant. It looks like the second one just says it couldn't find results one way or the other regarding "abstinence" education. I'm not sure if that means abstinence only or just abstinence in general. And let's be honest, does anybody think that teaching abstinence could possibly be a BAD thing? Furthermore, legislating morality is not unconstitutional. Without morality we wouldn't even have a justice system. I'm not sure what specifically you think is unconstitutional about "social conservativism."### Human: > There are numerous studies linking promiscuity, earlier sexual activity, number of unique sexual partners, etc to adverse affects such as future failed marriages, depression and STDs. Are you just asking for some of those studies? Or are you asking for the "thought process" behind the position? I was unclear in my reply to which you responded. I'll try again: A rational argument that premarital sex *should be illegal* is socially conservative, but I have never heard one. The rest should be the same. I was ambiguous in my initial post. I don't mean to say that socially conservative *views* have no place in society. I disagree with them, but I'm not trying to ban the thought process. I'm not even saying that all conservative laws have no place in society. Socially conservative laws which are based on religion or tradition without the support of evidence and rational argument, and especially in the *face* of evidence and rational argument to the contrary, are what I would want to see made unconstitutional. This happened recently with gay marriage in the US. The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no rational basis for gay marriage to be illegal, so it was struck down. > The first source you just posted is regarding abstinence ONLY education, which is not relevant. It looks like the second one just says it couldn't find results one way or the other regarding "abstinence" education. I'm not sure if that means abstinence only or just abstinence in general. And let's be honest, does anybody think that teaching abstinence could possibly be a BAD thing? My understanding is that there are two general schools of thought regarding sex ed. Comprehensive education teaches what sex is, the risks involved and how to mitigate them, and how to handle the emotional responsibility of the act. It would include, I surely hope, the information that abstinence is the only truly risk free path, while not passing judgment on anyone who prefers to practice safe sex. Abstinence only education is what is says: Don't have sex, kids. No demonstrations of proper condom use, no instruction into the types of birth control and their effectiveness, no information regarding having safe and fulfilling sex. If you're asking whether I think it's a bad thing to tell kids, while in the midst of comprehensive sex education, to inform them that abstinence is an option, it's the only risk free option, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until the time is right (by whatever metric they prefer) to have sex, then no. That would be an important part of comprehensive sex ed. > Furthermore, legislating morality is not unconstitutional. Without morality we wouldn't even have a justice system. I'm not sure what specifically you think is unconstitutional about "social conservativism." We're equivocating on the word "moral". My fault, actually; I should have defined my terms better. To answer your question, social conservatism is unconstitutional because it seeks to pass laws, or preserve existing ones, based on tradition or dogma, even in the face of evidence and rational argument. That is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment by privileging one system of morality above another without supporting evidence and rational argument.### Assistant: > I was unclear in my reply to which you responded. I'll try again: A rational argument that premarital sex should be illegal is socially conservative, but I have never heard one. The rest should be the same. Then you misunderstand social conservativism because I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the case that premarital sex should be illegal. You must be taking the most extreme stance you can think of. >Socially conservative laws which are based on religion or tradition without the support of evidence and rational argument, and especially in the face of evidence and rational argument to the contrary, are what I would want to see made unconstitutional. Well this seems like a pretty significant change in your view. It used to be that social conservativism was unconstitutional, irrational, harmful. Now it's just that only the socially conservative laws that are based on religion with no evidence or rational argument are what you're talking about? You're just defining your argument in a way that makes it impossible for you to be wrong. >This happened recently with gay marriage in the US. The US Supreme Court ruled that there was no rational basis for gay marriage to be illegal, so it was struck down. Which was a silly decision on the court's part and is clearly driven by recent public sentiment and not on the constitution. As Roberts said in his dissent: >If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. Essentially what you have to believe is that it is **illegal and unconstitutional** for a state (whose power is supposed to be broad relative to the federal government) to use legislation to encourage heterosexual marriages. That's crazy to say a state can't decide to do that on its own. >My understanding is that there are two general schools of thought regarding sex ed. Comprehensive education teaches what sex is, the risks involved and how to mitigate them, and how to handle the emotional responsibility of the act. It would include, I surely hope, the information that abstinence is the only truly risk free path, while not passing judgment on anyone who prefers to practice safe sex. Abstinence only education is what is says: Don't have sex, kids. No demonstrations of proper condom use, no instruction into the types of birth control and their effectiveness, no information regarding having safe and fulfilling sex. If you're asking whether I think it's a bad thing to tell kids, while in the midst of comprehensive sex education, to inform them that abstinence is an option, it's the only risk free option, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until the time is right (by whatever metric they prefer) to have sex, then no. That would be an important part of comprehensive sex ed. So then I'm not sure what's wrong with abstinence education. I hope more research is done on the subject, with regard to how much emphasis to put on each thing, because it seems like all that is tested now is either "comprehensive" or "abstinence-only". >We're equivocating on the word "moral". My fault, actually; I should have defined my terms better. To answer your question, social conservatism is unconstitutional because it seeks to pass laws, or preserve existing ones, based on tradition or dogma, even in the face of evidence and rational argument. That is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment by privileging one system of morality above another without supporting evidence and rational argument. Can you give me an example of socially conservative legislation that is *purely* based on religious dogma and has no rational basis?### Human: > Then you misunderstand social conservativism because I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the case that premarital sex should be illegal. You must be taking the most extreme stance you can think of. The comment to which I replied asked whether I thought it was unconstitutional to tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. In that context, I responded by saying that any law based on that idea without supporting evidence and rational argument would be unconstitutional, while the simple expression of the ideas would not be. I haven't heard anyone even attempt to argue that all premarital sex should be illegal; that's just what the commenter was talking about. > Well this seems like a pretty significant change in your view. It used to be that social conservativism was unconstitutional, irrational, harmful. Now it's just that only the socially conservative laws that are based on religion with no evidence or rational argument are what you're talking about? You're just defining your argument in a way that makes it impossible for you to be wrong. It's not a change in my view. It was a refinement of how I'm expressing that view after spending all this time reading comments and writing responses. If I had it all over again, I'd make it something like, CMV: Socially conservative principles are have no rational basis and laws based on them are unconstitutional and harmful. I didn't mean to make social conservatism being irrational the premise for the whole argument, though the ambiguity in the post is bad writing on my part. Part of the view I'm expressing and that I want challenged is that social conservatism is irrational. > Which was a silly decision on the court's part and is clearly driven by recent public sentiment and not on the constitution. As Roberts said in his dissent: If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. The whole argument of the petitioners was based on the equal protection under the law that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That amendment is literally in the first sentence of the decision. I'll have to read his dissent when I'm not bleary eyed from lack of sleep, but one passage lept to my attention as I skimmed: "For all those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage” referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman." That is not true. Many cultures in history and even today include polygamy in their definition of marriage. The fact that we have a *word* for marriage among multiple people means that a marriage of one man and one woman is not the universal definition of the institution. I'll find out later when I read it, but in the meantime: What the hell was he basing his opinion on? Did he go to the wrong courtroom that day and miss the oral arguments that centered around the 14th amendment? Is he not aware that other cultures have different marital practices? > Essentially what you have to believe is that it is illegal and unconstitutional for a state (whose power is supposed to be broad relative to the federal government) to use legislation to encourage heterosexual marriages. That's crazy to say a state can't decide to do that on its own. States can use legislation to *encourage* whatever kind of sex and marriage they want. Refusing to give gay couples the same protection under the law as straight couples does nothing to encourage heterosexual marriages. I didn't feel any more or less inclined toward marriage when gay marriage became legal, nor can I imagine any rational basis for anyone else to. If you *did* suddenly feel different about getting married or not as a result of the Obergefell decision, then you have an attentive audience for an explanation of that change of heart. The whole point of my post was to try to find someone who could give me a rational argument for social conservative laws because I find it shocking that a huge segment of the population could feel so strongly about these topics without a good reason for it. > So then I'm not sure what's wrong with abstinence education. I hope more research is done on the subject, with regard to how much emphasis to put on each thing, because it seems like all that is tested now is either "comprehensive" or "abstinence-only". But that's just my point: there's nothing else to test. I don't know of any model of sexual education that would exclude important topics, but still teach enough to not be considered "abstinence-only". When people say "abstinence education", they usually mean "abstinence only education". Or that's what I understood the phrase to mean up to now. The problem with abstinence only education is that it *doesn't work*. It leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, not lower. > Can you give me an example of socially conservative legislation that is purely based on religious dogma and has no rational basis? Laws against gay marriage fit this description.### Assistant: > The comment to which I replied asked whether I thought it was unconstitutional to tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. In that context, I responded by saying that any law based on that idea without supporting evidence and rational argument would be unconstitutional, while the simple expression of the ideas would not be. I haven't heard anyone even attempt to argue that all premarital sex should be illegal; that's just what the commenter was talking about. I'm not sure if this is what you're saying or not, but that commenter didn't seem to be implying that premarital sex should be illegal. >It's not a change in my view. It was a refinement of how I'm expressing that view after spending all this time reading comments and writing responses. If I had it all over again, I'd make it something like, CMV: Socially conservative principles are have no rational basis and laws based on them are unconstitutional and harmful. I didn't mean to make social conservatism being irrational the premise for the whole argument, though the ambiguity in the post is bad writing on my part. Part of the view I'm expressing and that I want challenged is that social conservatism is irrational. Well it seems to me that if a socially conservative view is rational and has a coherent and plausible thought process, then there *probably* won't be anything unconstitutional about it, at least with respect to the first amendment, because then it wouldn't simply be based on religious dogma. >The whole argument of the petitioners was based on the equal protection under the law that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. That amendment is literally in the first sentence of the decision. Yes I understand, and there's no good reason to think that gay marriage should be protected under the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law doesn't mean each law has to include you, it just means you can't change the law for different people. So for instance, I'm 29 years old, I can't invoke the 14th amendment and demand I get social security right now. Why? Because the definition of the law only provides benefits to people over 65 years old. I wasn't discriminated against. The law is written to be exclusionary because it's trying to achieve a specific outcome. It's the same thing with welfare. If I were rich (I'm not, but I can dream), I couldn't invoke the 14th amendment to get welfare, because it's defined as only being available to certain individuals exhibiting certain behavior. Why is marriage any different? What is wrong with a state simply saying "hey we noticed that humans reproduce heterosexually, and we as a government want to promote child birth, so let's subsidize heterosexual couples." How can that extremely simple and intuitive thought process be unconstitutional? States are allowed to promote/discourage certain activity. As a more libertarian-leaning guy, I tend to think it's stupid and the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether, but it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional at all. >I'll have to read his dissent when I'm not bleary eyed from lack of sleep, but one passage lept to my attention as I skimmed: "For all those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage” referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman." That is not true. Many cultures in history and even today include polygamy in their definition of marriage. The fact that we have a word for marriage among multiple people means that a marriage of one man and one woman is not the universal definition of the institution. I'll find out later when I read it, but in the meantime: What the hell was he basing his opinion on? Did he go to the wrong courtroom that day and miss the oral arguments that centered around the 14th amendment? Is he not aware that other cultures have different marital practices? Let's not be too semantic. Yes there have been some cultures that have different views on marriage but the vast majority of civilized societies viewed marriage as being between a man and a woman. And it's not surprising either given that humans reproduce heterosexually, and have been reproducing heterosexually longer than they've simply been monogamous. >States can use legislation to encourage whatever kind of sex and marriage they want. Refusing to give gay couples the same protection under the law as straight couples does nothing to encourage heterosexual marriages. I didn't feel any more or less inclined toward marriage when gay marriage became legal, nor can I imagine any rational basis for anyone else to. If you did suddenly feel different about getting married or not as a result of the Obergefell decision, then you have an attentive audience for an explanation of that change of heart. Take this logic to its extreme. If the state has to include more and more things in the definition of marriage, then eventually it's really not encouraging anything, because everybody gets the same benefits or the same legal protection that comes with marriage. Just to keep things simple and intuitive, let's pretend the state was giving $1000 to heterosexual couples in order to encourage people to get together and make babies. Well if you reject the notion that marriage is about procreation (at least partially) then you have to provide that $1000 to more and more people, and that means people have less and less incentive to get married in order to get that $1000. In other words, in order to encourage behavior, it **HAS** to exclude other behavior. >The whole point of my post was to try to find someone who could give me a rational argument for social conservative laws because I find it shocking that a huge segment of the population could feel so strongly about these topics without a good reason for it. Of course there's a good reason to it. Social conservativism *generally* is aimed at combating social decay in various forms. And can you blame them? We have increasing illegitimacy rates, increases in single-parent households, in welfare usage, narcissism has been generally going up over the past century or so. My vague theory about social decline (moving away from just gay marriage) is that as society gets richer, it tends to become more lax, lenient, etc. We don't HAVE to work as hard so we don't. We don't HAVE to be as responsible sexually (because of advancement in contraception and education), so we aren't. I think by and large social conservativism just fights back against that tendency for society to become complacent. >But that's just my point: there's nothing else to test. I don't know of any model of sexual education that would exclude important topics, but still teach enough to not be considered "abstinence-only". When people say "abstinence education", they usually mean "abstinence only education". Or that's what I understood the phrase to mean up to now. >The problem with abstinence only education is that it doesn't work. It leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, not lower. Saying abstinence-only education is a conservative position is like saying no-abstinence education is a liberal position. The socially conservative position is that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, but that doesn't mean you have to support only abstinence-only legislation or education. >Laws against gay marriage fit this description. No, it doesn't. Not only are there *material differences* between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but I find it astounding that anybody can even attempt to claim that marriage as an institution has nothing to do with procreation. If you believe it makes sense for a state to say "hey let's promote heterosexual marriages because we want more kids," then you cannot claim that refusing to sanction gay marriage in the eyes of the government is unconstitutional.

### Human: CMV: If I wanted to maximize good, instead of buying made in America products, I should buy the cheaper version made overseas and donate the difference to an effective charity.### Assistant: You're goal is to maximize social good, which is admirable. Your argument uses money as a tool which you believe has the power to bring about said social good. I agree with you 100% so far, however i don't think you've done the math quite right here. Let's break it down like this: **cheap sweatshop t-shirt scenario**: You have $X total for shirt spending purposes, and buy shirt for $Y, company which is guilty of *social bad* has gained $Y in revenue, and the world's social good fund is now at -$Y, but you have $X-Y remaining. $X-Y is donated to charity, but unfortunately charities do not commit 100% of their donations to a cause, they must first pay their costs of operation in order to continue to exist as a charity. This may include cost of a building, wages for fulltime employees, water and electricity, and other business expenses. Maybe half is left, maybe 3 quarters, maybe nothing, but we know for certain that the amount left over is less than the amount you gave, so some value less than $X-Y was added to the world's social good fund. The social good fund is already at $-Y, and $X-Y cannot possibly be greater than X as long as the shirt wasn't free, so your social good fund is less than what you started with no matter what numbers we plug in. This makes sense, because part of our money was lost to the charity's costs of operation, and the other two parts cannot add up to one whole without that missing part. **MIUSA t-shirt scenario**: You give $X for the shirt, and all X dollars of the purchase go to the good cause of American made industry which helps to fight against poor working conditions in the market, and their success combats the success of other companies which take advantage of people, so even if the company profits they still promote social good by appealing to other companies who seek similar profits. The world's social good fund is now at $X **TLDR:** Charities take cuts which reduce the spending power of your dollars, whereas a business gains the full amount you spend in revenue, and better American revenue helps to combat their competitors with sub-par working conditions.### Human: >You give $X for the shirt, and all X dollars of the purchase go to the good cause of American made industry This is what I'm skeptical about. I don't necessarily think supporting a Western worker is the best "good cause". I could see how it might fight against poor working conditions and make MIUSA products more successful, but then I am no longer helping to support lesser developed countries. I think your math is a bit reductionist, though I appreciate you trying to explain it in that way. I don't think using single unit variables really accurately calculates the degrees of social good or bad that would happen in either scenario.### Assistant: The math wasn't really necessary and a bit reductionist, you're right, but some people think differently when it's introduced. The more important concept I want to get across is that supporting Evil Company and Good Charity is a mixture of good and bad social causes that could be leaving you with a negative result. If the charity accomplishes less than you expect, or your purchase ended up doing more bad than you realized, your actions are not bringing about social good. The easier solution, if you are skeptical to the value of buying American, is making no purchase at all. Go to a thrift store and buy a previously owned t-shirt, borrow t-shirts from people, take a one time hit from buying American and then keep that shirt longer than you'd ever keep a sweatshop shirt by taking good care of it. Obviously the shirt is an example and could represent other items. Doubting the social value of buying domestic products does not make up for the misdeeds of sweatshops. If you absolutely, positively have to choose between the two, why not risk the good that may be bad for what you already know to be bad?### Human: I definitely understand that the sweatshop option is less certain. Also, I agree buying second hand is probably the most ideal option. But let's say for whatever reason, I'm not going to buy second hand (I'm a size small, and often it's medium and larges in thrift stores. But anyway...), so I'm going to buy new. Let's also scale this up. One t-shirt isn't going to make much of a difference, so let's look at a clothing budget over 10 years. Let's say if I bought cheaper overseas clothes I would spend $4,000 over ten years. Yes, this might be a lot, but let's say I'm into fashion. If I bought the MIUSA options, let's say at a 50% premium, then I would spend $6,000. That gives me a hypothetical $2,000 by going with the overseas option. To save one child's life, it costs ~$3,340. ([AMF via givewell.org](http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF)) So with a $2,000 donation, I could save .6 of a child's life. Then the question is, does helping to marginally support domestic production of clothes really outweigh the benefits of helping save the life of a child? It's my opinion that the life of a child should be weighed as more of a social good than helping to pay someone's wages in a domestic country where they are already in the top 5% in a global sense.### Assistant: Two quick facts from [DoSomething.org](https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-sweatshops) (the sources are there and credible, I checked and encourage you to as well): > In developing countries, an estimated 168 million children ages 5 to 14 are forced to work. > A study showed that doubling the salary of sweatshop workers would only increase the consumer cost of an item by 1.8%, while consumers would be willing to pay 15% more to know a product did not come from a sweatshop. > Sweatshops do not alleviate poverty. The people who are forced to work must spend the majority of their paycheck on food for their families to survive. Your plan will save 3/5ths of a child's life over 10 years. Supporting the cause for awareness by boycotting sweatshops will send a message, maybe motivate others, or at the very least let you know you tried your best to save some 168 million children from hard labor in shitty conditions that they can't leave or they risk their livelihood. Yes, the majority of those 168 are agricultural but once policy changes and change is made it will spread. 12 Million children working in industry is still unacceptable. Double workers wages and the price goes up 1.8% These companies would rather charge you 1.8% less so you keep coming back than provide better care for the millions of workers they employ who have no other choice. You're not going to take them down alone, but I'd hope you sleep better knowing you did your part in standing for human decency which could save millions rather than 3/5ths of a child over the next decade.### Human: >You're not going to take them down alone, but I'd hope you sleep better knowing you did your part in standing for human decency which could save millions rather than 3/5ths of a child over the next decade. Can you explain how $6,000 of purchasing power can save millions?### Assistant: A boycott is not a one man operation, you find strength in numbers. No one is asking you to march in the streets with them, or call your senators to influence foreign policy, or really do anything at all other than spend more at a different clothing store or try a little harder to find your size with second hand. When your fellow humans turned to you and said "help us fight against inequality in this world" you turn back and say "my $6000 isn't enough" but they never asked for a cent. They're asking for your support, your pledge to do what's right, because they know that every great change achieved in this world asked a lot less out of anyone than $6000. Your charity contributions are wonderful and don't let anyone take that away from you, but don't let that be ruined by using them as justification for your active participation in a system that takes from the poor and gives back to the American consumer.### Human: You criticized the charity option for being unclear. But I laid out the evidence that I have a concrete reason to think it would help save a life. So my $6,000 can't save millions? Why did you make it sound like it could? If I care about making an evidence-based decision, then how can you convince me that saving .6 of a life isn't a net social good if I am complicit in sweatshop labor?### Assistant: Except saving millions isn't even your goal, as long as you save 4/5ths in 10 years you're doing better. But you're demanding concrete numbers and evidence while comparing apples and oranges. A boycott campaign does not convert to simple dollars per life units, but don't pretend that means the benefits are nonexistent. The civil rights movement was never a guaranteed concrete payoff, but I think you'll agree it was a worthy cause. My point is simply you don't know what activism will bring about, but you don't just not participate. I made it quite clear that your $6000, which is actually only $2000 of difference, is supporting a cause that can save millions from lives of poverty and despicable conditions so don't twist my words just because that doesn't equal a number in your forced dollars/lives unit.### Human: > I made it quite clear that your $6000, which is actually only $2000 of difference, is supporting a cause that can save millions from lives of poverty and despicable conditions Yes, but that's like saying I could donate $1 to an anti-poverty organization and thus support a cause that will entirely eradicate global poverty. However, we have to look at the numbers and examine what exactly that $1 will do. I personally think it would do close to nothing, and similarly, I think diverting $4,000 from a lesser developed country to spend $6,000 on a high-income country won't do much, either.### Assistant: I get what you're saying and I do not disagree with your logic nor your favoring of concrete numbers over unknown variables, but I think I can change your view if I work with your perspective on this. The difference between your donating $1 to anti-poverty and our current situation is that supporting the cause of fair global wages requires you to NOT do something. Rather than asking for your donation like a charity, this is a cause for social good that says stop doing something you may be already doing. Obviously, you were able to create concrete financial value equal to $2000 by starting with the cost of what non-sweatshop might cost and subtracting the cost of sweatshop, but that number only exists under the assumption that buying American-Made at +.50% cost was your only option. In the real world, as soon as you commit to the cause of NOT buying sweatshop clothes, you've opened up a wide realm of options. Option 1 is going secondhand, which will involve spending even less than sweatshop prices, meaning you could now donate $4000 to charity if we operate under the assumption that thrift stores cost half as much as sweatshops. Option 1 has turned the comparison to 'buy sweatshop and donate to $2000 to charity' vs. 'support a good cause, donate $4000 to charity, but spend extra time/effort looking for your size.' Maybe Option 1 doesn't work, and thrift shops aren't your thing or the effort is too great. Okay, option 2: cut back your clothes spending by 50% by taking better care of your clothes so that they last longer. This option now puts us at 'support a good cause, donate $2000 to charity, but buy half as many clothes as you normally would each year' vs. 'buy sweatshop, donate $2000." I made up 2 options that came to mind, but there are plenty more, and I'm not even a very creative person: you could start looking for coupons to reduce your spending at non-sweatshop stores and donate the savings to charity, you could read internet forums to find cheap online retailers that sell non-sweatshop clothes at cheaper than you were first able to find, you could do a mixture of any of these options together to find an easy balance. No matter what, the option always becomes *Support the cause for fair global wages and zero tolerance for child labor, but make a change to my status quo that may take effort on my part* vs. *Continue buying from sweatshops and supporting an unethical industry because it is convenient for me.* I do not know your moral system nor any ethical theory you may subscribe to, but if our goal is still maximum social good like you said in the OP, the choice seems clear.### Human: > Support the cause for fair global wages and zero tolerance for child labor, but make a change to my status quo that may take effort on my part vs. Continue buying from sweatshops and supporting an unethical industry because it is convenient for me. I agree with you that the dichotomy between buy cheap sweatshop clothing vs. buying expensive MIUSA clothing is false. But I put some constraints in my view that these are the only two options. So if my view was a bit more general, without those constraints, then I would definitely agree with you. But my view was more based on a hypothetical, so while I agree with you that there are much more optimal and more morally right actions to take, in the case of the two options I laid out I think the sweatshop clothing is more preferable if I did indeed follow through with the donation aspect of it.### Assistant: > But I put some constraints in my view that these are the only two options. What good does constraining ones own view ever accomplish? Not to get sidetracked from our discussion, but maybe if I changed your view about the way your view should be changed, it'll change your view! My intention was never to turn this into a strawman and argue in favor of something that wasn't relevant, but I do get the feeling your two options are unfair to yourself in that they are strictly defined by you in such a way that they limit your outcomes. I do not mean to accuse you of not wanting your view changed because you've seemed very engaged in the argument so I don't think that to be true. I can also tell you're a logical and rational person who puts considerable thought into what you discuss, so what I'd be curious to hear from you is how you might have imagined anyone being able to change your view when you have limited it to the choice between two options which have both been defined in a way which you refuse to reconsider. I'll summarize your argument as: Buying expensive MIUSA clothing is worse than buying sweatshop clothing and donating the savings to charity. First, I suggested that charity is not pure social good, so your value was potentially dropping, but you stated that you were skeptical as to whether or not the MIUSA company is enough of a good cause. Well, I really can't track the dollar value from MIUSA cashier through the distribution chain, factor the social value of MIUSA business practices and then quantify it as a concrete number that exists anywhere beyond pure speculation, so I instead sought to explore the global issue that MIUSA fights against and sweatshops perpetuate. When I tried to quantify the potential social good of combating the global issue, you rejected it because it didn't result in dollars per lives saved like your example. Thats fine, I'm a big picture thinker but you seem to prefer the details, so I stepped deeper into the definitions of your two options and explored how 'buying MIUSA' could be thought of as the same as 'NOT buying non-MIUSA', e.g. thrift-stores, discounts, or cutbacks. You agreed with the logic, but then you felt that I changed the initial option too significantly so we were back at square one. If you're still interested, I'd like to hear any objections you have to my recount of events, as well as hypothetical arguments which you could imagine, if carried out, would help you to reconsider the view you feel has not been changed yet.### Human: That's a decent summary. I constrained the view because the clear option would be not to buy clothes, or to spend the bare minimum on clothes. Those are obvious choices and obviously I agree with the reasoning. My view, and I constrained it in this way, was to try to reason out an alternative to the anti-sweatshop movement in a way that actually results in more social good. So it was less about what ideally I should do, but more an ethical hypothetical or a mathematical problem. It's a mathematical problem so it's constrained by the inputs. The resulting calculation will then be the answer. So yes, I like the *idea* of not contributing to sweatshop labor, but that's just an idea whereas effective charity is more concrete. If you wanted to change my view, and you mentioned what you would have to do, then it would have to be some type of economics that is also aligned with utilitarian ethics. It would have to show, with numbers not ideas, that the MIUSA option is preferable in terms of generating social good. So, maybe expecting someone to actually do that would be too high a bar, and maybe it's impossible to do in the first place. But I guess I was hoping that there were some good articles that are floating around that address this. No one seemed to have found any (well, asides from one person who found an article defending the economics and social benefits of sweatshops). So yeah. Maybe more research is needed, and thus there isn't really a feasible way to change my view at this moment. I'll give you a delta since you made me realize my view might be too hard to change, and you seemed to put a decent amount of effort into getting me to that point. :) ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Jls900. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Jls900)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: CMV: Israel is a toxic ally to the US and the negative situations they involve us in outweigh any value they provide.### Assistant: Israel is a desirable ally for the US for much the same reasons as Cubas was a desirable ally for the Soviet Union. Having a constant military presence and support at or near a location of conflict. One US senator called Israel "America's Aircraft Carrier in the Middle East." From a realist perspective, they are trustworthy, stable, consistent ally that will pretty much always back US policy and interests in the region, in exchange for financial and military aid. The fact that their interests allign closely with the US's is important, as the US has also installed and supported dictatorships in the past, not because they were friendly, but because they were the least bad option. Other countries are genuinely concerned with what they do for how Israel will respond, and the Israeli-US alliance has served as a deterrent for (state sponsored) violence. Sure, they have their conflicts, the primary one being Palestine, but I don;t think it's worth dissolving the US-Israeli alliance over that one key issue.### Human: How are they trustworthy? They frequently engage in human rights violations and other other embarrassments. Not to mention the fact that they have been caught spying on and stealing nuclear secrets from the united states.### Assistant: As I said in another comment, they are trustworthy in the sense that the US can count on them for support when needed, and that they won't shift allegiances to other countries or interests when its convenient for them. This is not definitive by any means, but their [UN voting record](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/votetoc.html) is a good indicator of where they stand in US matters.### Human: > and that they won't shift allegiances to other countries or interests when its convenient for them. Their allegiences are very clearly to themself, and not the United States. Again, the fact that they spy on and steal information from the U.S. It's like if a woman has a boyfriend who doesn't work, just mooches money off of her, and also steels stuff from her when he feels like it. And she justifies it by saying "yeah, but at least he's loyal. He wont leave me for anyone else." Having an ally who wont leave you isn't a good thing if them being your ally is detrimental.### Assistant: >Their allegiences are very clearly to themself, and not the United States. Again, the fact that they spy on and steal information from the U.S. An alliance is a relationship of convenience for both parties. The US gets something they want, and Israel gets something they want. The only necessity is shared interests, and hopefully loyalty. Spying is a moot point, it's is something all nations do; even the US and the UK spy on each other to a certain extent. Comparing it to an interpersonal relationship just doesn't make sense. It's much more like a business transaction than anything else.### Human: Did the UK steal secrets related to developing nuclear weapons from the US? And also refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty? >Comparing it to an interpersonal relationship just doesn't make sense. It's much more like a business transaction than anything else. Okay, if you have a business contract, where you agree to give someone else $5000 per month and they give you nothing (or nothing close to that value) in return. The knowledge that they are loyal and will never break the contract is no comfort. Same thing I said before. Having someone who wont wont leave you is only a good thing if them being around is actually positive.

### Human: CMV: Life is pointless### Assistant: All our lives are effectively pointless from the perspective of the vast and eternal universe around us. Fortunately, we are not the vast and eternal universe around us. You are just you, and I am just me, and we are the only ones who can decide our own meaning.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's not true. I saw this thread because you made it. By sharing with others online you have already changed the world, whether you realize it or not. If you weren't here tomorrow and you never said another thing, that would be a change. Things would happen differently. You have correctly identified that nothing you do will really matter in the grand scheme of things. The same is true for the human race. So what? Should we just give up because everything eventually ends anyway? Or should we try and make the most of what we have? We only get one shot, both as individuals and as a race, is it not our duty to do our best? What else could the point possibly be?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I for one am glad we can't change the grand scheme of things, there's something peaceful about the universe without life. Life is cruel and chaotic. None of our accomplishments will matter after enough time passes, but neither will our mistakes.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: if intelligence is determined by factors outside of your control, then so is grit and character.### Assistant: I'll do this short, because I imagine this will take a little back and forth. The premise I would start with is there is a fundamental difference between intelligence and grit. Intelligence is a limit. You are only so intelligent. You can't decide to be more intelligent. Grit is a predilection. Some people are predisposed to working harder, some less, but everyone is capable of physically picking themselves up and doing something. It is just easier for some. I would say Grit is more like Wisdom. Yes, more intelligent people pick up knowledge easier, but a person can determine they wish to learn more. Because of this, we consider (or at least I do) uninformed individuals who have an opinion on something responsible for their lack of information, but we do not hold them responsible for their lack of intelligence.### Human: > but a person can determine they wish to learn more. They cannot. Not by themselves, in my opinion. The real crux of arguments like OPs (I think) that a lot of people fail to grasp is that *everything* is the result of a person's neural computations, which are themselves the result of physical structures installed in the brain, by genetic factors *or* by learned ones. A person controls neither. Say we have two tribal individuals who both believe that enslaving neighbouring tribes' people is okay. They believe this because they've never seen or heard anything to convince them otherwise; almost everyone in their tribe holds this view, and they were raised by it. By our standards, this is ethically wrong (I assume you'll agree). But perhaps you'd be willing to accept that we can hardly blame these two individuals for their beliefs, since they're clearly a product of their cultures. So, forgiving this, you opt to teach these two people about Western/egalitarian morals, and why it is wrong to enslave people just because they don't belong to your tribe. Person A accepts your teachings. He sees why slavery and xenophobia are terrible things, and gives up the practice. But person B does not. He swears by his local beliefs, and stubbornly refuses to continue learning from you. He resumes raiding and enslaving neighbouring tribes, subjecting them to lives of misery and *objectively* causing harm. According to your views, person B has failed to "determine to learn more". They've failed in their willpower. Their failing is down to their own merit, and their own responsibility. But ask yourself, why did person A accept your teachings, where person B did not? Willpower? What is *willpower*? Biologically, what does that mean? Let's say we have a good understanding of exactly why these two individuals came to different conclusions. Person A looked into the eyes of one of the people he was locking up for slave labour just last week, and they reminded him of his sister's eyes. Person A has a disposition - let's say genetic, but it would work just as well if it was learned, as even *this* would be beyond his control - to think rationally. He put 2 and 2 together, and asked himself why it was okay to cause suffering to people not belonging to his tribe. Your teaching really extended the experience he had already had. What would have happened if he hadn't had those experiences? Person B had no such experience. Consequently, your views conflicted directly with what they'd known to be ethical for their entire lives, and they responded by ignoring your advice. To clarify, the *memories, logical processes, neural structures, and genetic dispositions* of Person B caused a certain circuit to fire, and a certain response to take shape in their behaviour, formatting their view and shaping the rest of their life. At what point could person B *determine* to want to learn something new? What *determines* something like this is pre-existing experience, along with other externally delivered factors. Sorry for the long example, but determinism/incompatibalism is difficult to explain to people who are used to thinking about people in terms of free will. Read through my hypothetical carefully, and see if you can tell me exactly *where* either person could determine what was going to happen, through any other means than pre-determined nature/nurture.### Assistant: > A person controls neither. Well, it depends. They do not control their initial state, but because of capacities for self awareness, people are able to steer themselves in the direction they would like to go. Of course, their desire to steer themselves a certain way originated from a state of affairs they had no control over. Schopenhauer said it well when he said "man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills".### Human: Yep, and by "do" we can mean; respond, react, calculate. That's all humans are, as far as I can see. Big, squishy calculators. People 'steering themselves' is entirely handled by a person's internal logic, which cannot be much different to that of a computer program. As given in my example, Person A makes a different decision to Person B because of their neurological state. This itself is shaped by forces beyond their control. This is what I mean when I say that free will doesn't exist in the sense of some cosmic switch-force where one person "chooses" in a way that's different to your typical line of processing. People seem so eager to play free-will-of-the-gaps with neurology by demanding that, beyond simple mechanical responses such as reflexes and arithmetic, there's some structure in the brain that handles the complex stuff and *that's* the part that we can blame for messing up. It's frustrating.### Assistant: I do not deny that strong free will is metaphysically impossible, whether the universe is deterministic or random. However, I think we can say that most of what we care about when we say "free will" is perfectly able to be accommodated under determinism or indeterminism. I can actually act in the ways I wish to, as long as the ways I wish to act accord with natural law. The fact that what I wish to do is determined by processes that precede me and have had no mind does not impugn upon my ability to act as I will, which is what is important. The free will people want is not the kind threatened by determinism, unless it is a particularly religious kind of free will, which is mainly used by theologians in their defence of other elements of their faith, such as theodicy.### Human: I disagree. I see people longing for the impossible kind of free will quite often, in matters of justice and personal merit. How many times do people bring up the "but he chose to be a criminal" argument when considering crime and punishment? And just earlier, I was arguing with someone who seemed to think that overweight people should be ashamed and that losing weight is "not hard". Point is, people always seem so ready to base their responses on how they *feel* about a person, rather than what will make that person's situation better.

### Human: I believe all victimless crimes, including prostitution and drug use should be legalized. CMV### Assistant: The first thing I really feel a need to address is the seat belt issue: I'm driving down the highway, behind your car. In Scenario 1, you have a seat belt and you're buckled in. In Scenario 2, you aren't wearing your seat belt. Now, in each scenario, the car in front of you stops short, so you stop short. I was maybe driving a little too close to your car, and I can't react in time to prevent collision. In Scenario 1, you live. You might get whiplash. You might get a bad back. Your car might be totaled. All of these are things that will generally mean I will have to pay a significant amount of money and/or my insurance will raise my premium. But in the end, that's where it ends. We're both alive, and I might have to pay $10,000, but I'm not going to jail or anything. It was an honest mistake. In Scenario 2, you fly through the windshield and die. There are many consequences that affect me. I can be brought up on manslaughter charges. I have to live with the knowledge of taking away a life. The money I might have to pay will definitely increase, as would my insurance. Wearing your seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects anyone and everyone else on the road who might get into a collision. What could be a small, minor issue that is easily resolvable becomes a tragic, unfixable problem. And yes, I do hold some responsibility for hitting your car, your selfish action is the reason this small, minor issue has gotten so out of control. While I'm sitting here writing a mini-essay, I'll try and address your other issues. ##Drug Use/Prostitution: I actually agree with you on this one. If the government regulates these industries (and taxes it, for Pete's sake! Look at all that revenue that goes down the drain!), then the cartels and trafficking will likely decrease. There is a bit of an issue with legalizing drugs. Many of them are highly addictive. I'm not talking about people who want to smoke a little pot or anything. I'm talking about meth, heroin, etc. When drugs like this become prominent and easily accessible, society weakens. Imagine a $100 billion a year industry like tobacco, only instead of cigarettes, they are pushing meth. When you see a kid trying cigarettes in the inner-city at the age of 15, that's bad. When you see a kid trying hard drugs in the inner-city at the age of 15, that's catastrophic. Imagine how popular and accessible cigarettes and other tobacco forms have been for the last 100+ years. Imagine that it's not a cigarette, but a line of cocaine. As for prostitution, there is a very fine line here. How strict will regulations be? How can the government ensure that what is "it's her body and she can sell it if she likes" doesn't become "we want to make more money so we'll take this homeless girl off the streets?" What happens when it comes to girls (and boys) who might be underage? It would be easy to get fake IDs, or to just claim that they are eighteen. There's a reason that a women selling her body for some money can be linked to a sex slave black market. The government's enforcement isn't infallible. These things exist when they are cracking down on them. If even one girl is exploited because of the legalization of prostitution, if even one young man overdoses on heroin in eighth grade because he saw a commercial for it on American Idol, won't that be too high a price to pay? ##Consumption of Pornography/Child Cartoon Pornography/Sexting Between Minors When it comes to porn, it is more or less a victimless crime, with a slight exception. I don't think consumption of pornography should be criminalized. You won't get an argument about it from me. When it comes to child cartoon pornography, there's a bigger question. What would we consider "cartoon," and when does it stop being harmless. Here's a scenario. I'm really good with computers, and I make a 3D model of my daughter, eight years old, down to the very last detail (and I mean *very* last). This is legal to view and jerk it to, as it's a victimless crime. But what happens if she finds out that I have this collection as she grows older? That she knows her father not only created this vile image of her, but shared it with some buddies. He put it on a child cartoon porn forum online, so there are strangers now jerking it to her. Now she feels dirty. She was made a porn star without her own permission. Of course, there wasn't a single thing illegal in this scenario, is there? He didn't touch her, take a picture of her, nothing. But we all know what computers can do, and computers can easily do that. And now onto sexting. Very similar issue. First off, how minor is minor? Kids get cell phones at younger and younger ages. What's to stop texting from becoming the new "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? If a 12 year old boy sends a dick pic to a girl he likes, she can forward it to his whole school. A dumb 12 year old has just made an irreversible mistake. Let's take a radical scenario, because these are often needed to see these issues in a different light. Uncle Jimmy likes looking at young, pubescent boys. Whether you want to call him a pedophile or an ephibophile, I don't care, it's just as disgusting. He convinces his daughter to get a classmate of hers, who Uncle Jimmy finds appealing, to send pictures of himself in various lewd positions. He offers her $50, which isn't something to shake a stick at at that age. Of course, sending a bunch of nudes to a girl in his class is legal, so this classmate, we'll call him Johnny, sends them. While this girl goes out shopping with her $50, she leaves her phone at home, and Uncle Jimmy has a grande ole' time wackin it to this poor kid. Nothing here was illegal. Now, Jimmy sends the pictures from his niece's phone to his own, and then to all his friends'. Of course, that's illegal, but as long as these pedophiles cover their tracks, no one will find out. Now, Little Johnny's nudes are all over this network of pedophiles, possibly put online somewhere in the deep web. That's the kind of thing that the current laws try to protect. --- In conclusion, a crime which might, at first, seem victimless, is not truly victimless. Not putting on a seat belt might not seem like there's a victim, but now the liability has been raised for anyone who might hit you. Smoking some pot or even shooting up might not seem like there's a victim, but if the industry is legalized, it will have negative impacts on society. A woman offering some late-night company for money might not seem like there's a victim, but if the industry is legalized, people could take advantage of it by preying on those who can't say no. Playing some five-on-one to a cartoon depiction of naked children might not seem like there's a victim, but if there is no regulation, pedophiles could make "life-like" models that resemble the real thing enough to turn to kid into a victim anyway. A fifteen year old sending a picture of her tits to her boyfriend might not seem like a victimless crime until her boyfriend sends it to everyone in his address book, and it gets far enough away from the source to be untrackable. That's why there are laws against these. It's not for the, what I will call "innocent," prostitute, nor is it for the kid who smokes a joint before a test because he thinks it will make him do better. It's for these worst-case scenarios that are disturbing to even think about. But once this Pandora's Box is opened, there's no easy way to regulate it.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: As to your first point, even the knowledge that I killed someone is something that could be worse than any legal accountability I have. Even if all the liability is taken away, I've still taken away a life because of the selfish decision of the other guy to not wear a seat belt. As for the rhetoric issue, I was trying to make a point. Obviously it wouldn't just be a few. So many people are taken advantage of as it is. When it all becomes a business, it will be worse. That's the point I meant to make.### Human: I disagree with your seatbelt reasoning here. The argument was whether or not neglecting to wear a seatbelt is a victimless crime. * You first claimed that it isn't, because it adds increased liability to other people. * That was rebutted with the possibility of adjusting liability for seatbeltless drivers * You countered by saying that there is still a victim because the other guy feels guilty for killing someone. Regardless of if the seatbeltless drivers is injured or not, the other driver has committed a crime. The driver is going to feel guilty for that crime. He is at fault for what happens to the seatbeltless driver. Yes, that driver could have taken more precaution. And he almost certainly was aware of the safety benefits and risks. That is why the suggestion was made, that if it can be shown that not wearing a seatbelt resulted in increased injury/damage than if he had worn a seatbelt, then liability should be lessened in that scenario. But I don't think laws should be put in place to prevent people from feeling too guilty for committing crimes, accidental or not. Here's a parallel to that situation, (a radical scenario, since you seem to like and approve of them): A man accidentally drops a peanut butter sandwich off of his balcony and it happens to land on the face of a man who has a severe peanut allergy. That man made the conscious decision that day to not bring his epi-pen with him because his shorts didn't have pockets, and it would have been inconvenient. He knew the risks, but he figured since he wasn't going to be around a restaurant, he should be fine. Little did he know, a peanut butter sandwich from the god, **Malapropos**, would soon be dropping on his virgin face. Long story short, the sandwich triggers his allergy and with no immediate help available, the man dies. Now. Is the man on the balcony at fault? Quite *literally* yes. His actions directly caused this man's death. But has he committed a crime? Of course not, nothing about dropping a sandwich is inherently illegal. But still, this man, if he is of sound mind and body (aka not Meursault), will probably feel some amount of guilt for what he has done. So should the law state that if you have a peanut allergy, you must carry an epi-pen with you at all times? If you use the same line of reasoning that you used for the seatbelt, you would agree with this sentiment, because not carrying a pen is not necessarily a victimless crime. It might result in someone feeling guilty for accidentally killing a man. But that's not what the law is made to do. It should be there to protect basic rights, protect our property, protect ourselves from other people, protect our youth, etc, which is why I agree with your other points. But what it should not do, is involve itself in every aspect of our lives, infringing on our free will, just in order to prevent the *possibility* of misplaced guilt. That notion is far too asinine to me. Just as the man with the epi-pen should be allowed to decide whether or not he wants to carry it around all day, the man, driving alone (provided the liability laws have been changed), should be able to decide whether or not he wants the seatbelt to cut into his neck all morning while he's stuck in traffic listening to Howard Stern make disturbing sounds while the sybian operator cranks the dial to 10.### Assistant: Δ### Human: This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/Playful_Danter changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

### Human: CMV: I think it is okay to use the phrase like Team-A 'Raped' team-B in a sport's context.### Assistant: The word "murder" is an exaggeration of a win in open struggle. There's nothing good about killing people, but a fight to death is a legitimate metaphor for a sports game. "Rape", however, uses a very different pattern -- a very old one, and one that we as a species really should leave behind: forced sex as a symbol of domination. As a culture, we are trying to disconnect sex from violence -- a connection that is older than humanity itself -- and turn it from a symbol of domination to a consummation of love. I do not advocate censorship, but metaphors like this are dragging us back into the ages where prison rape was a society's standard. I think it's best to refrain from using them.### Human: > As a culture, we are trying to disconnect sex from violence I don't get this impression at all. If anything, it's more connected with violence, thanks to increased visibility for BDSM, rape, other fetishist subcultures, etc.### Assistant: > BDSM, rape, other fetishist subcultures "Rape" is not a fetishist subculture.### Human: I've heard a fair bit of rape fantasies.### Assistant: "Rape fantasies" don't involve rape, because the sex is consensual.### Human: You're adorable. You should talk to some women.### Assistant: You're adorable projecting superiority over me when you haven't an argument or a clue :)### Human: I don't see where there would be an argument or clue, I'm just saying you should talk to some women and find out how diverse their fantasies really are. Maybe one will be drawn to your precious naivete, if you're into that. I appreciate that you find me superior to you for knowing more about this topic, but I wasn't projecting that, I was just making a suggestion.### Assistant: > I don't see where there would be an argument or clue Well than, maybe you should *think* about it. Rape is non-consensual sex. That means if you are consenting to the act, it is, by definition, *not* rape. > I'm just saying you should talk to some women and find out how diverse their fantasies really are. You are implying that you have more insight into the minds of women, then a stranger you don't know. This screams of insecurity and cluelessness. I have had many discussions with women about their sexual fantaises. Many have expressed to me their so-called "rape fantasies". None of these women believe that their fantasies actually involve rape. Not one.### Human: > You are implying that you have more insight into the minds of women, then a stranger you don't know. This screams of insecurity and cluelessness. Accusing random strangers of something like this might look to some people like insecurity or cluelessness on your part, guy. I'm just suggesting you continue talking to women and learn more about their fantasies. Not to stoop to your level of criticism, but I don't really see why you think I would be insecure or clueless based on my statements unless you're the one who's insecure and clueless. Why should I be insecure about the fact that you haven't heard everything yet? > I have had many discussions with women about their sexual fantaises. Many have expressed to me their so-called "rape fantasies". None of these women believe that their fantasies actually involve rape. Not one. This is why I suggest talking to some more women. How old are you? There's a whole world of kinky girls out there, you're just a few layers deep. You might even be discouraging girls from telling you their darkest or most unusual or taboo fantasies by acting like you've heard everything and certain fantasies don't exist. That can make a girl with a similarly unpopular fantasy feel afraid that you won't see her thoughts as valid or something. Go meet more women and talk to them, or actually, now that I think of it, try listening to them.### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]

### Human: CMV:TV series are unrivaled better in the original language than dubbed versions### Assistant: I'd argue that in the case where you don't speak the language, subtitles convey even *less* emotion than dubbing.### Human: i agree. but i'd like to focus on the case that i speak the language. i think that if you do speak the language and you have to chose (in my case between english and german version), you should always chose the original version.### Assistant: Oh, well yes. I agree with you. I don't think anyone would oppose to that. The only exception I could think of is if you enjoy extremely cringy stuff, which might be enjoyable to certain people.### Human: yeah, but i'd like to CMV on that because the only real chance to see those TV series in english is online on streaming sites which are legaly grey at best. legitimate online services here don't (usually) provide the original version but only the german dubbed one.### Assistant: Could you not just use a proxy?

### Human: CMV: Corporal punishment is an effective way to make young children behave.### Assistant: This is an empirical question that can be answred by reserahc: There are studies that show: "Time-outs yield same short-term compliance as spanking." "Long-term compliance: spanking is not effective" and "Spanking increases child aggression." See: http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/outreach/parenting/research/upload/Spanking-Research-Brief.pdf > I see stark differences in the way that cultures that beat their children produce far more mature, respectful, obedient teenagers, whereas teenagers from cultures that don't openly talk back, disobey and undermine authority This is either confirmation bias, or is due to some other feature of those cultures. Also, from the same article: "Negative effects span across cultures. Previous studies suggest that there may be different effects of spanking depending on whether the surrounding culture considers spanking an accepted practice (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). However, follow-up studies with higher quality data (nationally representative, longitudinal data) found that this was not the case. Spanking predicted increases in children’s problem behavior over time across White, Black, Latino, and Asian subsamples (Gershoff, et al., 2012)"### Human: Yeah, America generally has a much stronger culture surrounding freedom of expression and speech- it's almost ingrained into our society that we're allowed those basic rights. I think that probably causes more disobedience and back talking from kids than in countries that don't value concepts like those as highly.### Assistant: As a non-american, this is absolutely not true at all. we have many kids who back talk and are rude, and many even use the stupid "freedom of speech" excuse.### Human: Which country is non-America? Because I hear there are a lot of those.### Assistant: canada in this case.### Human: Some countries, while not big in reciting freedom of speech left and right, still have it almost as much as the US does and their societies are heavily influenced by it. Most places in western Europe, Australia, and Canada are all included in that sphere.

### Human: CMV: If something that is meant to be harmless is said by one person but is then deemed offensive by another, the intent of the speaker should take precedence over the interpretation of the ones offended.### Assistant: I think it is important to remember that jokes and comments don't happen in a vacuum by themselves. They happen in the context of culture and history, and are informed by those things even if only subconsciously. So while I agree with you that a speaker should be given the benefit of the doubt if it is clear they had no ill intentions, it is still important to have a conversation about the meanings that comments and jokes can have, even if those meanings weren't part of the speaker's conscious thought.### Human: But you shouldnt hold someone accountable for intentions that werent there. You cannot claim someone was malicious or racist if they werent. If something is tangentially or inadvertently racist then the person was at worst negligent, but never malicious. If we as a society put intentions on a pedestal then we have to respect that they arent open to interpretation.### Assistant: If I accidentally say something racist, I think it's right to apologize and take responsibility for it the same as if I accidentally run my car into the back of your car. We aren't absolved of all blame just because it was unintentional.### Human: Okay but is getting a piggy back ride inherently racist? How would anyone know that would be misconstrued in that way?### Assistant: [removed]

### Human: CMV: The Rage Virus from 28 Days Later would have never made it across the ocean to the America's.### Assistant: In the second film it was revealed that there are latent carriers who show no symptoms but spread it through blood or saliva. One such individual infects the whole safe zone in *28 weeks later* the same could happen if such an individual got on a plane and spread saliva through a kiss (that's how it spread in 28 weeks later) and than its zombie apocalypse### Human: Well then. I have yet to see the second one that explains that little plot hole. Thank you.### Assistant: Did I change your view?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: You need text in the comment or it gets removed, thanks though

### Human: CMV: I believe that the rule of "not talking about your salary/wage with coworkers" is more harmful than beneficial.### Assistant: The reason that employees are encouraged not to disclose their salaries is that it is in the firm's interest to negotiate a salary that is sufficient to satisfy each employee and that varies for intangible reasons. Similarly, it benefits the employee to not disclose their salary to others because it can foment dis-harmony between you and your co-workers: "She's making 10% more for the same job as me? I'm jealous of her and pissed at my employer!" We have a fiction that there are truly equivalent employees; that Pat and Chris can do the same work and have equal life histories. But that is only a fiction. Even if they have the same job description, went to the same school, and got the same GPA, Pat and Chris are not the same person in principle or practice. Even if the only difference between the two is that one negotiated a higher salary, that's a difference. You say "my view is causing me stress due to a certain situation at my work". I'll assume that you either think your compensation is lower than it should be, or you've got employees who are irritated at what they see as disparity. In either case the relevant question is not 'Is X making more than Y", but "Is X's compensation sufficient for X's needs?" Your proposal for open salary disclosure will likely cause as much dissatisfaction as it cures. This is also why — when job solicitations are published — if they specify a salary, it is expressed as a range. Employment is not the only place where this happens. Two customers purchasing the same product will often pay different prices for it. That's how markets work; look up "[economic surplus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus)" if you'd like more detail on the subject. I'm specifically ignoring consistent salary discrimination based on race, sex, etc. which is formally illegal in the US (and I suppose other nations as well). Source: been on both sides of the employee/employer fence and saw the reasons from both sides.### Human: > benefits the employee to not disclose their salary to others because it can foment dis-harmony between you and your co-workers: "She's making 10% more for the same job as me? I'm jealous of her and pissed at my employer!" That is not a benefit to the workers. The dis-harmony is caused by the difference in salary, not just the knowledge of it. If there were no other confounding factors, and there were two prices for the same good, would you pay the higher price for no reason?### Assistant: That's not necessarily true, I could find out that we both make the same salary, but I may think I am a much better worker than you, and therefore I deserve more. Dissatisfaction will arise even if all salaries are equal and everybody knows they are.### Human: If you start with the pretense that you all have the same job; one would assume that you are shouldering an equal amount of work. If you 'think' you are a better worker than your coworker, then you are suggesting that either you are going beyond your job description, or your co-worker isn't meeting it.### Assistant: I just don't think that holds up very well when human nature and the real world are taken into account. For one, some job titles are very amorphous and encompassing. I am a sysadmin on a team of three, but we all have very different responsibilities and it would be very difficult to say we all have the same job, even though we have the same job title and position in the eyes of HR. Take that all the way to the other extreme, even in a fast food job that pays minimum wage, some people are highly motivated and bust their ass, some people are trying to do the bare minimum to please their boss. Sure, one of them probably should be fired because they aren't meeting their job description, but as a manager, maybe you'd rather pay the other one a little more and keep them both - maybe the one really is doing "enough" to keep their job in your eyes. I just don't think the ideal you are describing actually exists. Sounds nice though.

### Human: CMV: Pro-life activists/advocates should all sign up to become caretakers/foster parents to the fetuses they fight so hard to protect. Not doing so makes the whole movement the epiphany of hypocrisy.### Assistant: I'm not pro-life, but I don't think they are hypocritical in this respect. > So I say if you've taken it upon yourself to dictate over the personal business of someone else, you should take it upon yourself to care for the child 100% during the pregnancy and after its born. It is their opinion that those people should be responsible for their own actions. I don't think people should buy a pet then leave it behind when they move. But my belief that people should not do that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not taking in pets with no home. What I want is for people to be responsible pet owners.### Human: > I don't think people should buy a pet then leave it behind when they move. Yeah this is where the argument crumbles. If you go buy some toilet paper and milk from the supermarket and suddenly balloons are dropped at the cashier and you're told that as the thousandth customer this month you've won a KITTEN, what are you going to do? Did you ask for the kitten? No. But you DID enter the supermarket, and it doesn't matter if you knew about the thousandth customer thing or not, now you're being given a kitten. Take some damn responsibility for your actions. Doesn't matter if your landlord doesn't allow pets, or if you're allergic to cat hair, or if you can't afford to have a pet, or you don't believe your home is fit for a pet because it's too small or too risky or you simply don't have the time to care for a pet. YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE KITTEN. Or the folks at the supermarket should take some damn responsibility for their own actions and stop giving away kittens as prizes, and care for the poor thing themselves.### Assistant: > If you go buy some toilet paper and milk from the supermarket and suddenly balloons are dropped at the cashier and you're told that as the thousandth customer this month you've won a KITTEN, what are you going to do? If you agreed to the contest rules, yeah, you should deal with the consequences. If you didn't want to deal with the kitten, don't go to stores that require you agree to the contest rules that might result with you getting a kitten in order to shop there.### Human: What if those are the only stores available?### Assistant: The store was an analogy to having sex. If you don't want to get pregnant according to pro-life ideals, don't agree do to a thing that can result in having a child.### Human: That is my point. There's no way to be 100% sure you won't get pregnant by having sex. Lots of people have sex but aren't trying for kids. And these people take lots of precautions, but sometimes they're unlucky and end up pregnant. So is it these people's fault for having sex? I don't think so. There's a chancee you'll end up in an accident if you drive. You could die, kill someone, end up paralyzed, etc. But you don't tell the person, you shouldn't have driven, because we all drive, it is normal, and at times necessary in life, just as sex is. One might respond with that sex isn't necessary if you aren't having kids, but I disagree. I think sex builds emotional and physical intimacy and is very important in a relationship. I don't believe in never having sex with someone until marriage, and even then, what if you don't want kids until you're done with your career?### Assistant: Or what if you don't want kids because you already have eight too many?

### Human: CMV: The draft age should be 21 not 18.### Assistant: Are you talking about the draft age as stated in your title? Or the voluntary enlistment age as mentioned in your explanation? Because the draft is never going to be used by the U.S. except in an emergency situation ever again. Modern equipment and tactics just make unskilled infantry too useless compared to trained volunteers. And, by definition, if it's an emergency none of your points really matter. It's an emergency. We're being invaded by huge numbers of foreign troops that somehow make it here without being detected (or aliens or zombies or something). We need warm bodies or our country will be destroyed. As for volunteers... the armed forces *do* assess the abilities and maturity of their recruits before accepting them. The 21 year drinking age is not embodying a principle that *no* 19-year-olds could drink without harm... it's a line we draw because there's really no mechanism to assess individual capabilities in a liquor store, and because we don't want legal alcohol being given by 18 year old high-school students to even younger ones. And also, alcohol is *physiological* affects on maturing brains, not just ones involving judgement and ability to make decisions for yourself.### Human: Yes my post used the wrong terminology. I am not concerned about a draft of 18 year olds during an emergency, I am concerned with the ability for 18 year olds to voluntarily commit. By the logic that the reason the line for alcohol is drawn at 21 and not 18, then shouldn't say, cigarettes be illegal for 18 year olds too? I think /u/siflux is on the money about the real reason that 21 is the drinking age. There is a direct correlation between higher deaths as a result of car accident and a younger drinking age. I understand that alcohol has physiological effects on maturing brains, and expressly said so in my post. The issue thats relevant here is that, broadly speaking, the brain of an 18 year old is still developing and the average 18 year old cannot balance risks the same way someone with a matured prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, regardless of any assessment of maturity the armed forces give to volunteers, it is hard to dismiss the active glorification of war and servitude shown in USMC/army/etc. advertisements. It's clear they want young men in large numbers, and any 'assessment of maturity' is surface level.### Assistant: It's funny you should mention cigarettes, a law just passed in California doing exactly that.### Human: It technically hasn't passed yet. Gov Brown still needs to approve it.### Assistant: Oh, that wasn't what I had been told, thanks.### Human: Hawaii has raised it, though, as of January!### Assistant: I was just about to say that too, but i forgot when exactly i heard it. LOL

### Human: CMV: I do not believe that it is a good thing that everyone in the US can buy weapons freely.### Assistant: Just getting facts regarding US firearm laws out of the way first: State laws vary but with the exception of private sale between individuals, every firearm sale in the US must go through a federally licensed firearm dealer (an [FFL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License)) and every applicant must go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ([NICS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Check_System)). If you don't pass NICS you aren't leaving the gun store with with a firearm. On top of that are various State restrictions, ranging from [waiting periods](http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/) to [other restrictions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state) on what you can buy in that State. In essence, you aren't too far off. You need an ID and a clear criminal record (no felonies or some violent misdemeanors) with some additional State restrictions. So onto your post: >Lesser weapons means lesser weapons you could get threated by. It also means less weapons for people to defend themselves. Looking at the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were [8,855](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls) firearm murders in the US in 2012. However, there were [1,203,564](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime) violent crimes committed that year including [84,376](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/rape) forcible rapes. In fact, (and contrary to popular belief) most violent crimes committed in America are done without a gun. The reason why so many Americans believe in the right to own firearms is because a firearm makes a weak person just as powerful as a strong one. A 50 kg woman with a knife is not as powerful as a 90 kg rapist with a knife. A 50 kg woman with a gun, however, is. One could argue that the presence of guns raises the chance of someone being killed, but that clearly isn't the case the majority of the time. Using the numbers above, firearm murders account for less than 1% of all the violent crime in the US. So a restriction in firearms is inhibiting more than 99% of violent crime victims from being able to defend themselves.### Human: >If you don't pass NICS you aren't leaving the gun store with with a firearm. this doesn't prove that you can handle a weapon safely, or store it safely once you have it. It just proves you haven't already committed a crime. The biggest problem with the US system for gun ownership I can think of is that if I were an american citizen, I would be allowed to buy a weapon intended for killing people and I wouldn't even have to show I knew which bit the bullets go in. I don't know my clips from my mags, my stocks from my butts, yet the US system would allow me to own this lethal weapon with ammo. How many people are there like me in the US, and how many of them think they do know enough?### Assistant: The same could be said for the hazards of buying a ladder at the hardware store. [The NIH](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478268) recorded 2.1 MILLION ladder accidents resulting in trips to the emergency room over a 16 year period, yet there isn't one single law in the US preventing anyone from waltzing right into Home Depot and walking out with a 42' ladder. With freedom comes personal responsibility. My First Amendment right allows me to speak my mind. I would be held accountable if I slander somebody, but I don't have to pass a test before I'm allowed to speak. There is a big political debate in the US about voter fraud. In an effort to reduce a very small rate of illegal activity, some people are proposing measures that would increase the burden on everyone else. Even though some of these proposed measures (both in voting and purchasing a firearm) make sense, they infringe upon our rights as Americans. There is a drastic difference between rights and privileges. Unfortunately, too many people think those words are interchangable.### Human: > The NIH[1] recorded 2.1 MILLION ladder accidents resulting in trips to the emergency room over a 16 year period, yet there isn't one single law in the US preventing anyone from waltzing right into Home Depot and walking out with a 42' ladder. does the NIH record how many ladders there are in the US, how many times a ladder is used for a legitimate purpose (IE changing a light bulb) and how many of those injuries actually cause any real harm? 90% of accidents didn't require hospitalisation, that cuts your number down to 14,600 a year or roughly one fifth of the number of people hospitalised by guns each year.### Assistant: >2.1 million ladder accidents resulting in trips to the emergency room This would only be even recorded if there was real harm. This implies that all the accidents he listed required hospitalization. . .### Human: the source explicitly states that only 10% of incidents required hospitalisation, so no.### Assistant: Shit sorry, i got confused. Responding to the wrong comment

### Human: I think that women are, overall, inferior to men. I would prefer to think differently.### Assistant: I would blame history. Women were never allowed to advance in the sciences or arts until very recently (and if you look at the art world now, it is dominated by women). One example is [Maria Winkelmann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Margarethe_Kirch) who did most of her husband's astronomical work but never received any credit for it and was later denied from the Royal Academy of the Sciences (in Germany) despite having made the astronomical calendars they sold (this was a scientific venture back then, calendar making) all by herself. This was one of the rare cases where we have personal information about the woman in question but you can imagine that other such cases existed. As for women in the arts, poets from Emily Dickinson to Sylvia Plath to Eileen Myles to Natasha Tretheway (the current Poet Laureate of the US) have added to the increasing cultural depth we experience in those fields. The world of performance art was more or less created by women (like Carol Schneeman and Yoko Ono). You have somewhat of a point with regards to women and men and mental health. But remember that women are more likely to open up and explain symptoms of mental illness while men are more likely to repress such things (which leads to a possible theory for why men have such higher rates of drug and alcohol problems). [Source](http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/men-women/). Just keep digging. And in the end, even if women are statistically inferior to men, so what? Don't let that change your treatment of anyone. You treat people as individuals, not as representatives of whatever group they belong to. There are women more mentally fit than men, smarter than men, more athletic than men, and vice versa. Everyone is different, and statistics don't define an individual.### Human: Just to add, the advances that women have made over the years are rarely discussed or showcased. There are a lot of women who have done **GREAT** things, advanced technology, made scientific discoveries, fought for Civil Rights...but too often their stories don't get told.### Assistant: Please to tell a few then. Which women have we not heard of?### Human: >fought for Civil Rights Rosa Parks? >made scientific discoveries Marie Curie? Are you just looking for interesting stories, or have you actually not heard of anyone? Look around on the internet, they're not hard to find.### Assistant: I know both. Who have we not heard of? You said their stories don't get told... the 2 you mentioned's stories have been told for ages.### Human: That wasn't me. I named those two off the top of my head, because I wasn't sure what you were really asking. Like I said, a quick jog around wikipedia will probably get you what you want.### Assistant: Well, if their stories are on wikipedia then their stories kind of have been told, but I will agree that they might've gotten too little attention if you can point to examples, or if the semi-OP can.### Human: I haven't the time, nor the inclination, sorry. You'll have to do the digging yourself.### Assistant: CMV please.

### Human: CMV: Donald Trump has a cult-like following and unlike the left, his followers are unable to be critical of him and this is dangerous.### Assistant: The left is fully incapable of being critical of itself or tolerating criticism of itself currently in the US, and much of the world. In fact if you look at the issues happening in universities with conservative student groups being disbanded, banned, or denied spaces to gather; speakers being banned or events canceled due to protests from the left; leftist groups violently attacking those of differing view points and physically taking people hostage as they take over schools; etc. The left is currently more cult-like and far less able to have constructive conversations on average.### Human: Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a platform### Assistant: Freedom of speech guarantees that the government cannot prevent you from having one. If people in general wish to ignore that is fine, but you cannot be prevented from saying your views.### Human: All the conservative trolls denied a stage at a prestigious university are more than welcome to babble their incoherent nonsense in any public park or square### Assistant: 1) Being conservative does not make you a troll. 2) These are government run schools, not private schools. They are public property.### Human: Not giving someone a stage is not censorship### Assistant: Actively denying them one is.### Human: I think Hitler was a misunderstood genius. Is it censorship when Berkley declines my request to speak on campus?

### Human: CMV: Workforce diversity efforts seem to be based on wrong assumptions and achieve the opposite effect### Assistant: Efforts to make minority demographics more balanced in tech companies isn't limited to just hiring. There is a significant amount of outreach to schools and children to try to destigmatize coding as a boys-only activity. Since you mention google, here is a page from google on some of the things they do: https://www.google.com/diversity/for-the-future.html I happen to work at one of the big tech companies and we definitely do *not* give different tests based on gender or anything like that, and in fact when writing up interview feedback I intentionally do not use the candidate's name or gendered pronouns. I refer to them as "The candidate" or "they", as in "The candidate recognized the problem could be solved with a binary search, so they parsed the data into a vector and wrote the following code." A lot of effort is put into removing bias from interviews that could skew hiring opinions. There a a handful of studies out there that show that there is often bias against women in science and tech fields, and by removing references to gender and having to qualify all opinions with things the candidate did or wrote in the interview ensures a certain level of objectivity. The final decision goes to people who have not even met the candidate and so they make the decision based on the performance alone - they don't have the opportunity to let their biases creep in. There's lots of discussion on internal mailing lists about the issue and why it occurs. I haven't met anyone who is under the illusion that we can achieve a 50% male to female ratio when only ~30% of the graduating CS majors are women. That's why there are programs that aim to get girls interested in code from an early age, like the ones linked above. The goal isn't to artificially inflate the percentage of women and minorities in tech, it's to remove the obstacles in the way of women and minorities that are causing the lowered percentage. If all demographics have equal access, the having ratios that match the demographics ratios should be the natural result. When those numbers don't align, that's a strong signal that something is going wrong, which is why there are efforts to investigate and fix this.### Human: Thanks for your answer. That's what I expected - the hiring process in companies like yours is very advanced in terms of removing bias and giving access to everyone based on merit. I myself probably wouldn't be hired to a small company due to my ethnic background but I am working in a large corporation where the ethnicity just doesn't matter if you can do your job well. Glad to hear no one at your company is under the illusion you can reach 50%. If the goal is actually to remove obstacles and not to artificially inflate the number, then it seems perfectly reasonable. I guess then there are two different things: genuine effort to remove obstacles (such as removing bias and creating education programs) and pressure to artificially inflate the numbers (what you read about in the media). It looked to me as if the article I linked implies that technology companies are not doing enough and the figure of 30% means there are discriminatory practices in place that exclude women who would otherwise be hired. But since companies like yours or Google have largely made the hiring process fair and unbiased, their workforce demographics is fair and is not a result of them discriminating against women. I would argue that technology companies are in no way responsible for the stigmatization of coding and access to education, so they cannot be held responsible for their workforce demographics. I would think that the job of corporations is to only provide equal chance to all candidates. Education programs are a noble cause but will only yield a result in a decade or so; therefore imbalances cannot be eliminated now. And corporations should not be the ones to blame for education and social issues. Therefore I would rather say that the government, society or people themselves, and not corporations, are the cause of the imbalances in the workforce.### Assistant: > And corporations should not be the ones to blame for education and social issues. Whether they "should be to blame for them" is kind of irrelevant, however, because these companies *suffer* from this lack of female participation in STEM fields. In as much as women and men actually have the same native level of capability, biases that push women away from STEM (or men towards it) result in a lower overall average quality of STEM workers. This is statistically inevitable. Thus STEM companies have a large incentive to try to fix this problem, whether they caused it or not (but really... society and culture is everyone, so the people in those companies are likely to be at least partially responsible for it anyway).### Human: I agree, and it seems that they are doing the right thing (removing bias + investing in education). What I think is the problem is implying that they are bigots, sexists and racists because their demographics don't align with the demographics of the general population, and indirectly pressuring them to hire people they'd rather not hire.### Assistant: Meh... I really wouldn't draw too many conclusions from internet Tumblerinas whining. And in any event, it kind of goes against the premise of your view, which is that the diversity efforts *themselves* are based on wrong assumptions, not that the people complaining about them are fools.

### Human: CMV: Despite what the media would have you believe, I'm 100% sure the "Cuckoo for Cocoa puffs" bird is not actually insane.### Assistant: The phrase "cuckoo for" can be understood to mean "crazy for/about" in the same sense that someone would use it just to signify greatly enjoying something. The bird definitely has something going on mentally which gives him an unhealthy fixation with the cereal though. He can't focus on anything for more than 15 seconds without instead moving on to the tenuous relationship that thing or activity has with his favorite cereal.### Human: I believe the phrase "*Cuckoo for*" is an insult to those who are actually suffering from serious mental issues. Instead, I believe the phrase should be changed to: "*I'm really enthusiastic for Cocoa puffs!*". After all, extreme enthusiasm for something doesn't qualify as insanity does it? If it did, everyone who's ever been in love would be classified as legally insane and would be subject to all such a diagnosis entitles.### Assistant: Hey, I'm not going to disagree with you on that. If I were hanging out in a mental hospital I would hold off complimenting someone by saying "I'm really crazy about those colors you're wearing," just as I might not say "wow these sandwiches are to die for" at a funeral reception. Your belief that Sonny should change the language he uses doesn't really change the validity of my statement though. Indeed he isn't cuckoo in that sense, but he is in the less politically correct sense which you seem to agree with. Also he does have some kind of mental fixation which is definitely neither healthy or normal. For example there's nothing wrong with liking doritos, but if every time you see something shaped like a triangle or something orange colored you slip into a coma imagining snowboarding down dorito mountain and landing in dorito gulch to be congratulated with a shower of cheese confetti by all the dorito townsfolk then there is something not right and I'd recommend you see a psychologist.### Human: A *psychologist?* To me, it's obvious that all the adventures Sonny has for Cocoa puffs are merely just a byproduct of a very hyperactive imagination. After all, by the time the next advertisement rolls around, he isn't still in a chocolate-induced Coma. Tell me, *do you consider ADHD a mental disorder? Is that considered insanity? Does that mean thousands, if not millions of kids around the world are insane, and should be placed into lunatic asylums?*### Assistant: Like I said, when he says he's cuckoo he's just using the un-PC way of saying he really likes them. I don't think you have to be insane to see a psychologist. I do think his life would be more enriched and grounded if he did though.### Human: Perhaps. *Perhaps not.* Maybe we are the *ones missing out*. Tell me, have you ever had Cocoa puffs? Have you ever tasted the sweet joy they bring to one's mouth? Maybe Sonny is living life like we all should, and we are nothing but forsaken bastards in a chocolate-less world.### Assistant: I actually have, and find them to be on the lower tier of cereal. Honey Smacks, Froot Loops, Reeses Puffs, Frosted Flakes, Corn Pops, Apple Jacks, Fruity Pebbles, and the king of all, Frankenberry all are better than cocoa puffs in my opinion. And those are just the sugar cereals.### Human: I admire your courage in taking time to notice the plight of a cereal you don't even prefer. You are a crusader for justice and a saint. Alas, this situation still has yet to be resolved.### Assistant: I feel like you're just misunderstanding his usage of the phrase though. When he says he's cuckoo for coacoa puffs he is just saying he really likes them, just in a different way. You're the one taking it too literally. I just think he had some other issues which could be helped but I don't think anyone thinks he's insane.### Human: Sonny has been depicted in a straightjacket before. Pretty sure people don't think he's mega-enthusiastic as I do, but actually insane.### Assistant: Merely a visual metaphor### Human: Would you enjoy being represented in a straightjacket?

### Human: CMV: Those who buy from telemarketers are responsible for the existence of telemarketers.### Assistant: TL;DR: Telemarketing serves some purposes other than just the occasional purchase they generate. Those other purposes are, usually, more important. The full explanation is in the word: tele*marketing*. It's a form of marketing, not *sales*. They're not there to create leads and make a sale; telemarketers serve the exact same purpose as a highway billboard with a phone number at the bottom. They are there to increase awareness of the brand in the (sub)consciousness of the person being called. They are there to make people think of this brand more easily when they think of this kind of product, or to make them aware that a solution exists for XYZ problem the product is supposed to solve. The vast majority of telemarketing would still exist for quite a while even if tomorrow, all together, the entire human population stopped buying from them. The "problem" of telemarketing is generally a rather intricate game-theoretic problem. There are individuals in a collective, and for every individual (save a rare few), things would be net better if there were no telemarketers, as telemarketers impose a sort of cognitive tax on them. So collectively, also, we would want there to be no telemarketers. But as some subgroups, we *do* want more money (the exchange rates between "money" and aforementioned "cognitive tax" are extremely strange, but they *can* be quantified on an individual level with enough work), which therefore makes it Nash equilibria that some subgroups will employ telemarketers (since they're getting more money as individual members of that group, and also because if no one else was doing it they'd be making money without being telemarket-taxed), and others will work as telemarketers (again, money + minor personal savings on the tax by not being telemarketed by this telemarketer subgroup). There is a Pareto optimum where no telemarketers exist, but it is not strictly across-the-board superior to the Nash equilibrium for many subgroups -- in fact, for every subgroup that *can* employ telemarketers, it is strictly better for them individually to use telemarketers. Not sure I've explained the game theory all too well. Overall, though, the issue is that once you reach down to the decision point of the person buying from a telemarketer, you are in a subgame where if you do want that product, it's strictly superior to buy the product, compared to not buying, or wasting more time buying from elsewhere.### Human: > The full explanation is in the word: telemarketing. It's a form of marketing, not sales. That argument *was* valid in the US about 10+ years ago. It may be true in other parts of the world, but in 2004, the US implemented a national *do not call* list. This is an opt-in method where residents on that list request not to be contacted for unsolicited business purposes. The loophole to this rule is that any person/company can call any other person **once**. So if Coca Cola had already called me, they could not do so again. The net result is that large, institutionalized companies that aim to market for visibility can only have resulted in one call over the past 10 years. What *does* happen is that fly-by-night companies can legally open, call the entire US population, close down & reopen under a different name every six months. This creates a dynamic where the companies exclusively want to sell a product on the spot. Moreover due to shady practices these companies *will not* identify themselves until the user has shown interest in the product. Probably because they intend to call many times. I should have mentioned that my complaint is within the US.### Assistant: The problems with this are that: 1. The list is *opt-in*, which requires an initiative step on the part of the consumer / marketing target before putting them on the list. Many people who would wish to be on this list will probably not be on it for one reason or another, most of which fall under the word "[akrasia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia)". 2. Regardless of the application of this rule, as long as marketing VPs commission telemarketers and observe a correlated increase in sales (ideally after controlling for confounders, but most don't care to go that far), they will continue to use telemarketers, regardless of other metrics of effectiveness, customer annoyance, actual market penetration, actual lead generation, or on-call sales from the telemarketers themselves. 3. As you've said, third-party telemarketing firms are used all the time. These can be used to circumvent the one-call rule easily, especially in collaboration with the shadier firms that don't really use the list.### Human: 1. Ok, so we know what it's called but that does not absolve them from making the purchase. They don't need to actually put themselves on the DNC list to not buy anything on the phone from an unsolicited call that's a red herring of an argument. 2. Does not address or dispute any of op's point's. He's already granted this as part of his premises. 3. Does not address or dispute ant of op's points. As you say, he's already granted this point. Even given your point the blame for the existance of telemarketers still falls on the shoulders of the people who purchase things from them.### Assistant: Wait. You're saying OP granted that VPs will continue to hire telemarketers because they see an increase in sales independent of on-call sales, but that this does not have anything to do with on-call sales being or not being the reason for the continued existence of telemarketers? I'm saying telemarketers are hired *regardless* of on-call sales. This implies they would, most likely, still be hired if there were *no* on-call sales at all. But you're saying that despite this, it's still the buyer's fault? Even when their purchase or non-purchase is consequentially *irrelevant* as to whether the telemarketers will be hired again next year? That's a leap of logic I need to see some step-by-step for, because it doesn't follow at all from the information I have. Of course, "irrelevant" is a strong word here, and a simplification for reasoning about causal chains. It does play a part, however small, because it's money and those VPs like money. But my argument is that the most significant part is the marketing angle, not the sales angle.### Human: You're using terms and making claims that don't exist in your original post. Perhaps your confusing root comments. But that's not what you said originally, I'm just reading what you wrote here and responding. Sales from avenues other that telemarketing aren't the issue here. We're just talking about telemarketing sales. Not whatever else you're on about.### Assistant: No, we're talking specifically about: > Regardless of the application of this rule, as long as marketing VPs commission telemarketers and observe a correlated increase in sales (ideally after controlling for confounders, but most don't care to go that far), they will continue to use telemarketers, regardless of other metrics of effectiveness, customer annoyance, actual market penetration, actual lead generation, or on-call sales from the telemarketers themselves. Which is the second of three points I use to explain why the existence of the "do not call" list is not proof that telemarketing survives via on-call sales alone. Sales from other avenues, I've been saying since the root comment, *are exactly the issue*. These sales from other avenues are *increased* whenever a telemarketing campaign is active, regardless of whether or not the telemarketing campaign itself generates on-call sales. This correlation is why VPs continue to hire telemarketers, more so than the small amount of on-call sales produced by them. I'm not sure what part of that was made unclear in my earlier comments. And yes, the claims did exist in the original post, albeit worded differently, and some of them not spelled out quite as explicitly.### Human: > as long as marketing VPs commission telemarketers and observe a correlated increase in sales You said they were seeing an increase regardless of telemarketer presence. Now you're contradicting yourself...### Assistant: You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. I said they have an increase of overall sales regardless of telemarketer *sales*. That is to say, how many sales the telemarketers make, when there are telemarketers, does not affect the fact that the presence of telemarketers increases global sales (more so than can be explained by the raw on-call sales numbers). Go read it again. I clearly say "on-call sales", and I'm pretty sure I've kept all my grammar straight.### Human: So, if you see people selling things "on-call" you'll make more calls, duh. If people weren't buying things on calls people wouldn't be making the calls. That was op's original point and I still don't see anything that contradicts this in your post.### Assistant: > So, if you see people selling things "on-call" you'll make more calls, duh. If people weren't buying things on calls people wouldn't be making the calls. This doesn't follow. I have been arguing from the very beginning that people would still be making the calls if people were no longer buying things on those calls. Since you seem to misunderstand every explanation and rewording and re-casting I've done until now, time to take it down to ELI5 level: * Bobby likes to call his friends about his cool RAPTOR toy! * Whenever Bobby calls his friends about his RAPTOR toy, later lots of his friends come play with him and his RAPTOR toy! * Sometimes, when Bobby calls, them, they come immediately to play with Bobby and his RAPTOR toy! That's awesome! He wants to call those friends more often! * But even if no one ever came *immediately* to play with him and his RAPTOR toy, Bobby would *still* call all his friends about his RAPTOR toy, because they come more often to play with him since he started calling them about it! He thinks it has something to do with them thinking about his cool RAPTOR toy more often... There you go. If you don't understand, or misunderstand, my point in the above, then you're beyond my ability to vulgarize and simplify this subject.### Human: > Sometimes, when Bobby calls, them, they come immediately to play with Bobby and his RAPTOR toy! That's awesome! He wants to call those friends more often! Those friends should stop doing that, they are causing him to keep calling them.### Assistant: > Those friends should stop doing that, they are causing him to keep calling them. Are you doing this on purpose? Let's continue the story, then. * Bobby's friends stopped coming whenever he called them, because they don't want to hear about his RAPTOR toy on the phone anymore. * Bobby's friends still go play with him most of the time, just not right after he calls them. * Bobby stops calling his friends. * Now that Bobby stopped calling them, his friends gradually start forgetting about him, so less and less of them are coming to play with him. * Bobby starts calling them again. * No one wants to come play with Bobby immediately (they still remember how bad that turned out). * Yet, Bobby notices that now that he's started calling them again, more of them are coming to the regular play sessions, even though it's not right after he calls them. * Bobby concludes that his calls must be making them come more often to the regular play sessions, so he keeps calling them so that they come to the regular play sessions, not to make them come over immediately. Your every sentence seems to assumes the telemarketing, on-call purchases are the *only possible cause* of why someone would make telemarketing calls. This is blatantly false, and if you don't understand why you'll need to take a basic economics course and, preferably, start learning the very basics of marketing. Ads never, ever, create enough direct sales to justify their cost, yet they still exist. Why is that? Because they increase awareness, which increases *later* overall purchases. Bobby's calls serve the same purpose, above. The argument that direct purchases *increase* telemarketing is valid. However, that does not mean a removal of direct purchases would *eliminate* telemarketing -- some telemarketing would survive even if on-call purchases were completely eliminated. As a thought experiment, imagine what would happen if the US made phone purchases a felony, punishable by a minimum of twenty years of prison. Would companies suddenly stop calling people altogether, just because now there's no one buying on the phone? No, they'd keep calling. You would still have telemarketers, they just wouldn't even try to sell you anything on the phone anymore, and would invite you to enter their name on the online form when you go make your purchase later.### Human: > Your every sentence seems to assumes the telemarketing, on-call purchases are the only possible cause of why someone would make telemarketing calls. Yes, because if it's not then it's not telemarketing. I have literally never received a "telemarketing" call where someone wasn't trying to sell me something. Your examples seem to presuppose something completely different from reality.### Assistant: > Yes, because if it's not then it's not telemarketing. There you go. You're arguing from definition, and there's *No True Scotsman* who would ever dare make a telemarketing call for any purpose other than a sale, so the fact that sales happen must, by definition, be the reason those calls are made! Let's taboo the word "telemarketing" for now. You receive a phone call where someone wants to tell you about RAPTOR toys. They don't really care about selling you one right now, though they'd obviously be *delighted* if you were to ask if you could make a purchase immediately, but really they're just calling you today to talk about RAPTOR toys and make sure you're aware of how great they are for your children. Obviously, by the definition you've unilaterally established, that's not a telemarketing call. That's just some random weirdo who happens to be paid to talk about RAPTOR toys to strangers. And yet, because there are weirdoes being paid to talk about these fancy RAPTOR toys, suddenly everyone knows about them -- while no one had ever heard of this brand of toys before now! And since people know about them, they buy them. They buy a lot more of them than if those weirdoes had never started making those strange calls that definitely cannot ever be referred to as "telemarketing", because "telemarketing" *literally never* happens without someone trying to sell you something. Use the word you want for this type of call. These calls happen. The people who make those calls usually work in a place called a "telemarketing firm". Have a nice day.### Human: Yes, it's an advertisement. Just like on television, radio, or the internet. It's not telemarketing. If you're saying advertising works then sure, you're right but that's not the issue we're discussing at all. You're using the No True Scotsman logical fallacy incorrectly too. Sorry. > And yet, because there are [weirdos] being paid to talk about these fancy RAPTOR toys, suddenly everyone knows about them If this were true then why doesn't everyone do this? Every single brand in the world could benefit from it. Why doesn't Coke or McDonalds or Wal-Mart do your weird version of "telemarketing"? Well, they do. On television, radio, and the internet. It's called advertising. It's not telemarketing.

### Human: CMV: people or organizations don't deserve my respect until it is earned### Assistant: While respect can be defined as "deep admiration" for something or someone, often the groups that ask for it (such as LGBTQ organizations) are actually just asking for you to remain unopposed or to not get in their way. If going by that definition of respect, it makes far more sense to give everyone/everything your respect by default and revoke it if warranted. Also worth noting is that up until the point where someone actually asks you to do something, which is a separate request, giving someone your respect takes 0 effort, so there's little reason not to. I believe that you should definitely not feel obligated to deeply admire anyone that asks you to, but I think you've misinterpreted what some groups are asking for when they're asking for respect.### Human: I feel as if non-participation isn't their goal rather societal acceptance and respect is. >up until the point where someone actually asks you to do something, which is a separate request, giving respect takes 0 effort They inherently ask you to respect them in their call to action. Also in their flamboyant pride. If you disregard their call to action or dismiss them due to complete lack of interest, it's seen as an opposition. It has been in my experience at least.### Assistant: Depends which definition of the word respect you're using. Nobody is asking you to join a cause or a group...It's the same thing as respecting somebody's personal space. It's a basic human function used to avoid conflict and which requires no effort, aside from just letting them be### Human: That would be fine and in a perfect world I agree. Whenever someone becomes the greatest threat to a cause, it becomes an obstical to overcome. Thats why some use unfringement tacticts to get their message across like blm shutting down a highway. Dr. King suggested the apathetic white America was the greatest threat to the civil rights movement. My apathy becomes an obstical for special interest groups to overcome and my attention to their cause is their agenda. I say fuck that and my disinterest will remain but my unwarranted scorn for you will grow for your annoying accostment. Edit: sorry bout the you language. That's how I talk. Not "you", you.### Assistant: But you don't seem to be disintrested. You seem to be hiding your dismay for the LGBT behind disinterest and apathy. From your previous post: > Also in their flamboyant pride. This sentence is quite literally redundant to the point you were trying to make. And yet you still wrote it. You're not neutral on the subject of LGBT, you have an opinion. And I personally think that this CMW is your way of expressing annoyance that your opinion isn't... Well, respected. It isn't that you don't want to give them (us) respect for free, it's that you don't want to give us respect *at all*.### Human: "It isn't that you don't want to give them (us) respect for free, it's that you don't want to give us respect at all." Sounds about right. Until those individuals or orgs have earned his respect, he won't give it. He can not respect them because of something core in their values or something not as deep. It's still his decision. And flamboyant pride is not really an opinion per se.### Assistant: > And flamboyant pride is not really an opinion per se. Youre right. It's not an opinion, it's an *expression* of an opinion. An opinion I'm guessing is very negative towards LGBT folk.### Human: You are doing nothing to change his view here. Every person individually values some things over others. What he respects might not be what you respect, so earning his respect is ENTIRELY different than earning your respect. If LGBT warrants disrespect because of flamboyant undeserved pride, then of course it doesn't deserve respect.

### Human: CMV: The UN should add Hindi as a 7th official language### Assistant: English, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian were languages that historically belonged to large, global empires. This is why you find countries that those languages across the world (Russia and China are a bit more localized, but still have a vast spread). Arabic was added because it is one of the most common official languages (27 countries). Hindi has a lot of speakers in terms of population, but very limited use at the state level. If Hindi continues to spread out and eventually become the dominate language in countries in other continents, it certainly should be added to the list. For now, the language has the depth (population) for an official language, but not the breadth (states and institutions).### Human: Good points, but you can just as easily flip that argument around: Portuguese is used in many states but is very limited, compared to Hindi, in terms of population. If the number of Portuguese speakers grows and outnumbers Hindi, then it should be added to the list ahead of Hindi. You are assuming that breadth is more important than depth, but you have not provided any arguments to substantiate this.### Assistant: I'm not sure how that invalidates his statement? Hindi has a lot of speakers but doesn't have a lot of breadth, Portuguese has a lot of breadth but not a lot of speakers. Therefore, neither have been accepted as a UN official language. You can argue about the ordering in which they should be added to the UN charter, but that is an aside from the original argument.### Human: I wouldn't even go as far to say that Portuguese doesn't have a lot of speakers. While it's not quite as high as Hindi might have, over 300mil speakers is still a hell of a lot.### Assistant: Well the same sources I used to arrive at ~310 million Hindi speakers have Portuguese at 215 million speakers worldwide, which I guess would be approximate to the estimated number of people speaking Hindi proper, rather than Hindi + other Hindi family languages.

### Human: I believe that organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in. CMV.### Assistant: edit: blah the law changed when I was not looking False dichotomy. Opt-out is preferable to opt-in in my mind, but your question ignores the very prominent third method to approach this problem, **mandatory choice**: we *force* people to state whether they want to be organ/tissue donors at some point in their life (applying for driver's license, filing tax return, etc.). The goal, I presume, is to make sure that people's true wishes about organ/tissue donorship is reflected in their status as an organ or tissue donor, so that apathy does not deprive us of needed organs. Just as people who would want to donate are not donors in Germany, I can assure you that people who have no desire to be donors are nonetheless donors in Austria. What's wrong with mandatory choice?### Human: And how would you implement it? Those things cost a lot of money.### Assistant: Applying for a driver's licence?### Human: You Americans ;) Not everobody has one, at least I will not get one until I move out from Warsaw. There is just no point getting a car here.### Assistant: Do you have some form of ID? There's some in the US that don't have driver's licenses, but have state ID cards indicating as such to their option.### Human: Well, that would do just fine indeed. I am still for opt-out. This way it makes much easier to get donors. I understand that some people do not want to be sliced like an onion, but most of my friends and family just don't care (they really wouldn't mind, but have no intention of doing anything about it). I personally am wearing a document with me that states i wish my organs were donated. I believe everybody should. Hopefully in the next 100 years we will get to the point we don't even need that anymore.### Assistant: Yeah, in the next hundred years we'll be able to just 3D print organs, hopefully. No donation required. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3983971### Human: Yea, thatll totally be a thing in 100 years.### Assistant: Why not? It's not like 1900 - 2000 wasn't full of amazing technological and medical advancements.### Human: Oh wait, he's not agreeing on the possibility of developing that technology? He's just being condescending by trying to be sarcastic in text without adding any new information.

### Human: CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering### Assistant: Doing something to get attention, or to empower one's self are not mutually exclusive. What does receiving that attention do? What is the point of receiving the attention? Add on to that the fact that these women often remain anonymous by not showing their faces on reddit, and the attention is not on them as an individual. The attention is on their body. And that positive reinforcement can easily build self-esteem.### Human: You asked many questions which I too have and then didn't answer them. I still don't understand the motives behind that type of activity. So the attention of (usually) men finding sexual satisfaction from your body builds self esteem? Why is it empowering to put yourself in a situation where strangers are masturbating because of how attractive you are?### Assistant: Not Namemedickles but I am a guy and I would damn sure feel empowered if a bunch of girls were masturbating to some pics of myself.### Human: Why though? More power to you for that, but does that not support my opinion that gaining the attention of others sexually pleasuring themselves because of your junk is just that, attention seeking?### Assistant: Self esteem comes from confidence of how other people perceive you. So if you get positive responses to random people seeing your body, that boosts self esteem by knowing people find you attractive. Again the attention is not on the person as an individual but just their body.### Human: But why do people feel the need that THAT is how they want to receive a confidence boost? Posting nudes can be risky, why partake in that risk for some people to masturbate to you and tell you you look hot? Also a comment I forgot to make was that often gonewild posters will post to please the people receiving the images and not for their own empowerment necessarily. Isn't that more like attention seeking?### Assistant: Walking across the street is risky, why do people do that? Because in general posting anonymously is not very risky. As with anything people decide that the risk is small enough. Posting a comment on Facebook is risky (people have been fired from their jobs due to Facebook posts), driving is risky, flying is risky. Why do you think anonymously posting a nude photo is so much more risky? > Also a comment I forgot to make was that often gonewild posters will post to please the people receiving the images and not for their own empowerment necessarily. Isn't that more like attention seeking? Why do you see these as mutually exclusive? Someone can be empowered by knowing there are people who think they are so attractive they explicitly request more images. This is the same as say, feeling good when your girlfriend compliments you when naked or expresses a desire that she wants to fuck because you're sexy.

### Human: CMV: I think the Citizens United Supreme Court decision should be treated as a threat to national security### Assistant: > In general the fact that Congress only has 8% approval rating and the American public is virtually helpless to do anything about it is a cause for serious concern in my eyes. Except, you know, the fact that the American public has the power to vote out their representatives if they aren't doing an adequate job. The problem is that everyone thinks that Congress is doing a bad job, but that their own representatives are doing a fine job, so the same people keep getting re-elected and the same problems persist.### Human: > Except, you know, the fact that the American public has the power to vote out their representatives if they aren't doing an adequate job. I don't think this is a fact at all. I think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils. Namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics. For example, Michelle Bachman, so called "Queen of the Tea Party", narrowly won re-election in 2012 receiving just 4,298 more votes than her DFL challenger Jim Graves. From [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#2012_congressional_campaign): > _According to Politico.com, as of July 2012, Bachmann has "raised close to $15 million" for the 2012 election, a figure it called "astounding ... more than some Senate candidates will collect this year." From July to the end of September, Bachmann raised $4.5 million. This amount put her ahead of all other members of congress (including Allen West who was in second place with $4 million) for the third quarter. Bachmann said that she was "humbled by the enormous outpouring of grassroots support for my campaign focused on keeping America the most secure and prosperous nation in the world."_ Bachmann was subsequently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for "alleged campaign finance irregularities". And it seems the only reason she will not get re-elected in 2014 is because she has finally decided to not run for re-election. Now call me paranoid, but whose to say someone like Bachmann couldn't be getting money from a shell corporation owned by Vladimir Putin? This concerns me.### Assistant: >Now call me paranoid, but whose to say someone like Bachmann couldn't be getting money from a shell corporation owned by Vladimir Putin? This concerns me. The law. Super PACs aren't allowed to donate directly to candidates. >I don't think this is a fact at all. I think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils. Namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics. You seem to think that money can somehow prevent people from doing what they want. Just last month, Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, was ousted from his seat in a primary challenge by a man he outspent on a nearly 22-1 ratio. Nothing about campaign finance is stopping primary challenges from ousting any member of Congress except the will of the people. Also, FPTP and gerrymandering have nothing to do with Citizen's United.### Human: > You seem to think that money can somehow prevent people from doing what they want. But it is much more rare and much harder. You essentially have to be despised for things like this to happen. > The law. Super PACs aren't allowed to donate directly to candidates. This is interesting. Do you think there's no way for a foreign government to take advantage of the supreme court decision? > Also, FPTP and gerrymandering have nothing to do with Citizen's United. I think the citizens united decision exacerbates the problems of FPTP and gerrymandering. I believe it's amplifying problems that had already existed prior.### Assistant: >This is interesting. Do you think there's no way for a foreign government to take advantage of the supreme court decision? No more than existed before. Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act), which controls (really, prohibits) direct and indirect contributions from foreign nationals, was left untouched by the Citizens United v FEC decision. >I think the citizens united decision exacerbates the problems of FPTP and gerrymandering. I believe it's amplifying problems that had already existed prior. Do you have evidence of this, or is it just a feeling?### Human: > No more than existed before. I'm not convinced. What about, for example, Vladimir Putin gives money to Charles Koch who promises to use this money on a political candidate favorable to Russian interests? (Of course I'm not insinuating anything like this is happening). > Do you have evidence of this, or is it just a feeling? Well, this is actually more of an electoral college thing but look at how much money is spent in each state during presidential elections. It's a lot easier to bankroll an election when you only have to focus on three states instead of all 50. Apply this same principle to a single district. If I know my demographic is limited to a single group of like minded voters then I can use my dollars more effectively. Also it is easier to finance 2 competitors than it is say 5.### Assistant: If your really that paranoid about Putin giving money, citizens united is t your issue.

### Human: I think a lot of criticisms of "popular opinions" on Reddit are circlejerks of confirmation bias and victimization complex. CMV### Assistant: Two thoughts: 1.) Any effort to generalize about the opinions or behavior of so large and diverse a website as Reddit is basically doomed to failure in the first place. 2.) I think your perspective is slightly off. Saying "Reddit circlejerks about STEM!" doesn't necessarily mean that "A majority of Redditors engaging in this conversation share a common opinion". Rather, I take it as "Redditors spend far more time talking about STEM than non-Redditors", which in my experience is true. When you're repeatedly exposed to an opinion on Reddit that you only rarely encounter outside of Reddit (see: STEM, MRAs, free will anxiety, Monsanto, SOPA, Aaron Swartz, etc.), it's easy to see Reddit as a circle-jerk *relative to the rest of the world*. Even if it's an opinion that's only held by a numerical minority of Redditors, it can still be radically over-represented relative to the population as a whole.### Human: 1. I generally agree with this though I don't know how far you take it. I don't think it's stopped many people from saying things like "Reddit is racist" or "Reddit dislikes people that study humanities.: 2. I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about circlejerks. It isn't just that the topic comes up often. That comment is usually passing judgment on the prevalence and validity of the opinion. Usually you'll see some form of "Reddit is a bunch of smug, close-minded STEM majors", or "I don't get why Reddit hates humanities majors", or the hacky attempt at satire "DAE STEM!?!?" All of these imply that it's a majority opinion on Reddit to dislike non-STEM majors. I understand it's impossible to define Reddit one way or another because it's large and diverse. I'm saying that, if one actually looks at the threads objectively, it's unclear (at best) that there's some majority opinion here of disliking non-STEM majors. Perhaps there was in the past but the upvotes and downvotes of threads within the past year don't lie.### Assistant: I don't think you understood the second point. If 1% of the population believes STEM > humanities, but 5% of Reddit thinks STEM > humanities, then Reddit has a STEM cj edit: these numbers are arbitrary, but I'm just going to show that an opinion that is far in the minority could still be considered a circlejerk.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: to what?

### Human: CMV: "Safe spaces" have no place in higher education institutions.### Assistant: You might want to read through the [discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4xsg8k/cmv_safe_spaces_are_unhealthy_because_college/) this topic generated when it came up last week, and see if any of the comments change your view.### Human: Thank you! I did check that out. Most of the responses seem to deal with the definition of a safe space being any place where students can discuss their experiences without fear of being challenged or put in danger (e.g a support group, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc.) I mentioned in my OP that I am totally fine with spaces that help students/victims cope with experiences. Support groups are a good thing. What I do not agree with is a university canceling controversial speakers or preventing all discussion about certain ideas/topics. I do not think universities should favor some ideas over others, especially when the speaker has experience and knowledge about the topic at hand. In the Brown case, it wasn't just some guy off of the street speaking. It was a man speaking about police policy after becoming "the longest serving Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in its history and the first person to hold the post for two non-consecutive tenures." I hope that clarifies my position.### Assistant: So a more precise stating of your cmv is: "While safe spaces do have a place in college life, an entire college campus should not be defined as a safe space such that a part of the student body can discourage speech that a significant portion of the other students find constructive."### Human: No, safe spaces have nothing to do in college life. OP said support groups are fine. Safe spaces (where you cant challenge ideas) are not. One of my teachers refused to discuss abortion in a class that focuses on discussing controversial topics because to her, abortion is just wrong. Is that the kind of safe space you want?### Assistant: > OP said support groups are fine. Safe spaces (where you cant challenge ideas) are not. You're just redefining "safe spaces" then to only include the classroom. There is a time and a place for safe spaces on college campuses. A student Bible study group should be discuss a particular passage of the Bible *from the premise that God does exist and that the Bible is Scripture given by God*, and make clear that no discussion challenging that premise will be tolerated in the meeting. Same with an alcoholic support group that bans meta discussion of whether 12-step programs are scientifically shown to work, or kicks out members who violate the program's anonymity, etc. Those are safe spaces, whether you want to call it that or not. And campus life needs those in the right contexts. Many of us think that safe spaces have no place in the classroom, but that certain functions of social life will continue to require safe spaces in the original meaning of the term.

### Human: I believe that /r/atheism/ is full of ignorant, intolerent, naive, and mostly bigoted people, that aren't a valid reflection on the atheist people I encounter in my day to day life. CMV.### Assistant: > Maybe it's just an american thing. Way off, mate. Just a couple of days ago I was arguing with a anti-theist from Belgium. While I'm not subscribed to /r/atheism, though, it does serve its purpose- to vent. If you've just had a girlfriend you love leave you because you don't believe in her god, you'll want to vent, and /r/atheism will be there. When you're a teenage homosexual who just got beaten by your parents for being gay because their religion says they have to, you're going to want to vent, and /r/atheism will be there. Finally, while I'm not subscribed there, I've occasionally visited and a lot of the highest rated comments are urging anti-vitrol except against extremism because even the angry atheists over there don't tend to be completely anti-theism.### Human: well yeah that was just a throwaway line as a possible explanation. clearly the vast majority of reddit is american so i jsut made the logical link.### Assistant: Keep in mind that a lot of anti-theists aren't very public with their views in person to avoid being ostracized. People take religion very seriously- if I was ragged on for my lack of belief in a god, I'd take it cheerfully. If I mocked someone for believing in a god, I could get pummeled.### Human: I think there might be an error in your response. >Keep in mind that a lot of anti-theists are very public with their views in person to avoid being ostracized.### Assistant: Sorry, you caught it.### Human: I am so thoroughly confused right now.### Assistant: They're NOT very public with their views was my point.### Human: Yeah - so I just pointed out a typo. Nevermind. I was just trying to be helpful so you could edit your original post.### Assistant: I appreciate it. You confused me with "I am so thoroughly confused right now," though, mate.### Human: I was just confused because the original post wasn't edited. I was wondering if I missed something or not.### Assistant: Ah, no. I'm just lazy and I figured that anyone genuinely confused would see your comment.

### Human: CMV: The act of forcing police to wear cameras is merely treating a symptom of a problem rather than the cause### Assistant: I would argue that greater transparency in the police force through the mandatory use of patrol cameras and public access to these recordings in the court of law actually treats one of the main issues that minorities have with the "system". As an inscrutable monolith, the police garner little trust in communities that have been oppressed over decades or centuries. With the cameras, the police force is now easily accountable for any indiscretions, balancing the scales of legal power. It also helps to defend officers that perform their duties appropriately, preventing rumours and incitations to violence among communities where opportunists may use the lack of information to their advantage.### Human: As I said elsewhere the fact that they have cameras only goes to reinforce the idea that the police are part of a "system". The ideal sort of policing is where police get to know the communities that they are policing. When the police and the community know one another it becomes much harder for both sides to hurt one another. It is trying to treat the symptoms of a lack of trust by reinforcing the idea that police can not be trusted and must be constantly watched.### Assistant: I agree that police officers should become involved in the communities that they patrol but I disagree that the cameras enforce the idea that police are untrustworthy. The cameras serve as a check against misuse of power and unjust allegations. They are like a lock on your door. You don't assume that everyone walking by on the street is a thief, but if a thief were to come by, you would hope that the locks would stop them (I realize that good thieves can easily bypass locks, this is just an analogy). Furthermore, Police officers wield powers that a normal citizen does not. Police are people. They will make mistakes, but their mistakes will have much greater consequences due to their position. It is important that we have these checks so that we feel safe from their potential misuse. This will enhance the trust between minority communities and the police. This is not a cure-all but it is a step in the right direction along with community involvement.### Human: As I have mentioned elsewhere, other countries do not have the same problem as the US with police, and yet do not have cameras on their police force. This implies at the very least that cameras are not needed in the most ideal circumstances, which are obviously attainable. The reason why trying to use cameras may be a bad idea is imagine what happens if the police "lose" the footage. It would just erode trust even more, the issue of misuse of power, intentional or not, should be rare occurrence, the fact that it exists in such a large amount in America should tell you that a simple fix like cameras is unlikely to restore trust. It might not be a problem for an individual who sees a camera on a police officer, the trust in that situation probably would not change, but when it is debated at a national level, like it is now, it can only reinforce the opinion that police are not to be trusted. There are always people on reddit who argue that treating people like criminals before they have ever done anything seriously wrong will make people into worse criminals (most notably drug cases). It seems to me that it would hold true of police as well, if they are treated like they cannot be trusted then they will conform to a preexisting view of themselves.### Assistant: This is a rather naive view of the police situation in other countries. Police corruption is the norm around the world. A few countries with *less* corruption do not show that police cams are not needed in the ideal case. In fact, a strong argument can be made for them just given the unreliability and partial nature of eyewitness accounts.### Human: I agree with this, I personally know 3 people that lived in Italy and India, and the police systems there are full of bribery, extortion, etc. To say this blanket statement that our system is more corrupt or is the only one is very wrong.

### Human: CMV: Prostitution should be legal in all 50 States.### Assistant: The best argument (and the one that changed my opinion on the subject) is that when prostitution is legalized, the increase in demand is not proportional to the increase in supply. This results in an increase in [sex trafficking](https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/a%C3%AFssata-ma%C3%AFga-sol-torres/legal-prostitution-in-europe-shady-facade-of-human-trafficking) to meet the new demand ([additional source](http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/human-rights/legalized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows#)). A much better approach would be to criminalize buying, but not selling.### Human: So punish men but not women? That seems completely fair and not sexist at all.### Assistant: I thought he said buyers and not sellers. The gender of the buyer or seller is irrelevant, the important part is that the buyer has a choice while the seller is often taken advantage of or forced.### Human: You can pretend it's irrelevant but it overwhelming the case that the buyers are male and the sellers are female. If it were legalized it could be regulated and made safer for the women. Human trafficking went down in Amsterdam after legalization.### Assistant: While that may be the case, it's not discriminatory. You are not dealing with one party due to their gender, but because of their actions. That there's an overwhelming number of one gender doing those actions isn't really relevant. (I'm not saying legalization would be bad, only that this specific person did not say anything discriminatory in that particular post)### Human: So because blacks choose to commit more violent crime than any other demographic, there isn't a problem? Those are choices they're making too, so I guess they're not discriminated against either.### Assistant: Your use of the word "choose" implies that you do not understand how poverty works. And of course it's a problem - one of blacks being discriminated against in matters of where they live, the quality of education they get, the jobs they get and how people treat them. The laws themselves, however, are rarely discriminatory. What is discriminatory is the way they are being implemented (aka, the law enforcement is racist).

### Human: CMV: People shouldn't be dismissive of conspiracy theories.### Assistant: The problem is that many, many conspiracy theories border on the truly unbelievable and directly ignore evidence to the contrary. Look at chemtrails. Contrails are a phenomenon that is VERY well understood, and yet, there are thousands of people that believe the government is poisoning it's own people through what would have to be one of the least effective methods imaginable. If a conspiracy theory has a lot of good evidence, there's no reason to be dismissive unless you have equally good evidence or better to the contrary. People are dismissive of dumb theories, though, like chemtrails, or the "Sandy Hook was a false flag" bullshit.### Human: To be clear, Chemtrails are bullshit? Or people trying to alter the weather patterns is bullshit?### Assistant: Chemtrails are bullshit and generally speaking, weather modification is mostly bullshit although possible in a limited capacity.### Human: Thank you. Was just trying to clarify.### Assistant: Np

### Human: CMV: I believe that people who live outside of societal norms by choice have no right to complain when they are treated differently for these choices.### Assistant: > In an "ideal" world, all people would treat each other with respect and dignity. However, the world we are living in is far from ideal, and anyone who has lived in it should know that by now. Complaining serves a purpose. It communicates to others that the way they're being treated is not okay. I helps to move us closer to that ideal by bringing attention to the flaws in the way our society treats people. What should they do, remain silent and continue to be treated inappropriately?### Human: > It communicates to others that the way they're being treated is not okay. This is correct. But my bigger point is that, by breaking social norms, a person is basically inviting people to notice them and, to some degree, judge them for it. So the way they are behaving is, in my opinion, ASKING people to treat them this way, and in doing so they have no right to later say that it isn't ok.### Assistant: I don't agree with that at all. Breaking social norms does not make it okay for others to treat you poorly. Being mean to someone isn't okay just because they're a little odd. Again, whats the alternative? Never speak up? Don't attempt to make progress toward changing the norms?### Human: The alternative is to accept the reality that if you stand out, people will notice you, possibly comment, and if you are not ok with that you should mitigate your behavior accordingly. You cannot change how other people act/react, but you can change your own behavior to minimize the likelihood of receiving an undesirable reaction.### Assistant: > The alternative is to accept the reality that if you stand out, people will notice you, possibly comment, and if you are not ok with that you should mitigate your behavior accordingly. Why not accept the reality that it's going to happen *and* take steps to make it not happen, by pointing out why it's wrong? > You cannot change how other people act/react Sure you can. You speak up and let people know that what they're doing is uncool. To use a somewhat extreme example, it wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was socially unacceptable. I'm married to a Vietnamese woman. I don't get any criticism for it, and rightly so. In the past, I would have. The right course of action there is to call out the people who are criticizing me. Make it clear that there's nothing wrong with our marriage despite the cultural norms. Over time, people realize that yeah, that's totally cool, and the world is a better place. > but you can change your own behavior to minimize the likelihood of receiving an undesirable reaction. Here are the three situations: I conform to societal expectations that I do not agree with. I am not happy. I don't conform to societal expectations that I do not agree with, get criticized, and remain silent. Nothing changes. I am not happy. I don't conform to societal expectations that I do not agree with, get criticized, and speak up. Over time the things I bring up enter the public consciousness, are thought about and considered, and people can start deciding if my complaints are legitimate. Social progress is made. Yes, in a sense the goal here is to not get criticized, but why I'm not getting criticized is important. It should be because people are understanding, not because I'm conformant. Edit: fixed a typo and made a minor change to the end### Human: > don't conform to societal expectations that I do not agree with, get criticized, and speak up. Over time the things I bring up enter the public consciousness, are thought about and considered, and **people can start deciding if my complaints are legitimate.** Social progress is made. But at what point is it safe to say that society has decided that the complaints are not legitimate and that criticizing/reacting to the societal expectation is now morally okay? Aren't you suggesting by this logic that no one should criticize/react ever because all social progress is made when everyone doing everything is accepted? And for that matter, that as long as I, the "non-normal" (poor word choice, but I'm at a loss), complain enough, any way I choose to act should eventually become "socially progressive"?### Assistant: Having the right to criticize and having the right to complain aren't mutually exclusive things. NAMBLA, Stormfront and Chick-fil-A should always have the right to complain about whatever they complain about and it will always be morally okay to give em jeers. At the same time, women, visible minorities, transpeople, and whichever-group-comes-next-that-we-currently-don't-even-realize-we're-being-shitty-to are all doing their complaining, and the rest of society slowly goes, "aw fuck, our bad." As for the people who are just being weird, what's the point of being a dick to them in the first place? edit: p.s. what even is the definition of normal, anyway?### Human: >Having the right to criticize and having the right to complain aren't mutually exclusive things. Maybe I'm just understanding this wrong, so please correct me if that is the case, but I fail to see how they are not mutually exclusive in this case? The OP is discussing those people who complain for being criticized, ergo if there is no criticism there is no reason to complain. >NAMBLA, Stormfront and Chick-fil-A should always have the right to complain about whatever they complain about and it will always be morally okay to give em jeers. At the same time, women, visible minorities, transpeople, and whichever-group-comes-next-that-we-currently-don't-even-realize-we're-being-shitty-to are all doing their complaining, and the rest of society slowly goes, "aw fuck, our bad." This can really be boiled down to, if someone has an oppressing opinion, then we can criticize them for such, but if it is someone being oppressed then we can't. I never once argued against this. What I was suggesting with my original comment was that complaints about oppression from the oppressed are always going to occur (For being non-socially acceptable, for whatever reason). The problem I am having is that we as a society have to determine what complaints about oppression are and are not legitimate which creates too arbitrary of a line between what society should learn to accept and what we are just refusing to accept. For example, if I jeer at someone who chooses to walk around with a rainbow fox tail (absurd example but stick with me), I don't believe that the person wearing that tail should have any legitimate complaints. No one is forcing him to wear that tail, and he knew of the consequences for doing so but decided the gain was worth more anyways. Am I an ass for jeering? Sure. But am I morally wrong? I don't think so. I have a set of social expectations so when I see something that doesn't fit, I should be able to express my distaste for it. Maybe I don't want to live in a place where people are allowed to wear such distasteful attire, so I am expressing my discomfort of his right to wear a tail. I think the point OP is trying to make, and one that I hold as well, is that when someone chooses to act outside of normal societal rules, it is just that, a choice. So they have weighed the consequences for doing so, and have determined that acting outweighs any of the consequences. Therefore, they shouldn't have any legitimate complaints because they knew the consequences going in.### Assistant: >Maybe I'm just understanding this wrong, so please correct me if that is the case, but I fail to see how they are not mutually exclusive in this case? The OP is discussing those people who complain for being criticized, ergo if there is no criticism there is no reason to complain. Well, it's easy to imagine a scenario where one group is simultaneously being criticized and complaining about it. My position is that both sides have the right to be doing what they're doing, so they aren't mutually exclusive. Now, it's possible one or both sides are dumb and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and it doesn't much matter anyway. From the rest of your comment, I think the only real reason we're disagreeing is that your definitions of morality and acceptance are much more black-and-white than I feel they should be. For example, you said, >Am I an ass for jeering? Sure. But am I morally wrong? I don't think so. If you're genuinely being an ass, then yeah, I'd say you're morally wrong, but here's where the shades of grey come in. An act can be immoral without damning the person to eternal hellfire. In this example, you're being immoral on the same level as, say, littering or cutting someone off in traffic. You're not going to jail, but people might roll their eyes at you. Similarly, there's no "line" between what society "should" accept and what we don't. "Arbitrary" and "subjective" aren't synonyms, and there are a lot of pockets of different culture in any given society. So, ultimately, the person wearing the rainbow tail complaining about you giving them the gears is no different from you complaining about some weirdo wearing a fox tail. You're both just acting in the way that makes you the most happy, then trying to stop behaviours that are making you uncomfortable. The only real difference is that he's just chilling and doing his thing, while you're actively injecting yourself into his life. Finally, I'm not sure why you'd consider his complaints illegitimate. Obviously he has the right to make the choice to wear the tail, correct? And we're already assuming he weighed the pros and cons of flouting the social norms, so we know he's decided that wearing the tail and inviting abuse will make him happier than not wearing the tail at all. Knowing that, unless you believe that he *deserves* to be abused for wearing the tail, why would he not have the right to complain about mistreatment?

### Human: I believe that most people should not be blindly encouraged to get married or become sexually exclusive. It causes a lot of emotional harm through powerful jealousy as well as sexual restraint, and often leads to physical violence. CMV### Assistant: What if people are innately driven towards ~~sexual exclusivity~~ wanting sexual exclusivity from their partners? (eg genetics) For most people - if their sexual partner and person that they are in love with is having sex with other people, then they get upset and jealous. I think that's human nature, and not necessarily something that is of cultural origin (though culture certain does expand upon it and reinforce it, no doubt). ETA: If it is indeed genetic, then I believe you place a burden upon yourself to *provide a solution* to this problem. Or are you merely just trying to point it out to the rest of us?### Human: > What if people are innately driven towards sexual exclusivity wanting sexual exclusivity from their partners? (eg genetics) That's fine. But while I do think we have an instinct to get pretty pissed when that exclusivity is violated, I think it gets dialed up to 11 by all the nonsense people constantly spew about cheaters being the "scum of the earth" etc.### Assistant: Cheating is a straight-up asshole maneuver. The reason it causes people so much pain is because we as a society are not willing to accept that there is a huge difference between having (safe) sex for fun and actually making love to your significant other, but both are okay because they release repressed emotions **and** allow an increase in the amount of positive "vibrations" felt by everyone. Yeah, everyone's been with a couple more people, but the one who is meant for you will keep coming back until you both lose awareness of the outside world, join your lives together. And hey, who couldn't use a little more sex in their lives?### Human: The difference between sex and making love is exactly the same bullshit artificial convention that the "cheaters are scum" attitude is.### Assistant: Well, in neutral terms, it could be described as your emotional investment in sex. Personally, I experience sex very differently depending on my relationship with the person. It just seems like common sense that you would have a different experience when sleeping with someone you care deeply about than you would with some woman (or man) that you just met exclusively for the purpose of sex. One isn't inherently better than the other, they are just different experiences. I think we go wrong when we assign a moral stigma to casual sex, not by differentiating between sex and lovemaking.### Human: It's common sense that cheaters are the scum of the Earth, too.### Assistant: Depends how you define it. If you decide that "cheating" is engaging in sexual acts with another person while in a relationship, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Cheating is only immoral when it constitutes the violation of agreement between you and your partner(s). Practically speaking, if you start a relationship with someone in the US, it's implied that you agree not to sleep with anyone else, so unless you specifically agree otherwise, I would consider cheating immoral. However, not all cultures demand that relationships be mutually exclusive. The Greeks, for example, entertained the idea of "emotional fidelity", which dictated that people could sleep around, as long as they didn't form deep emotional connections with other people. That being said, this rule really only applied to men so all in all they were still sexist assholes, but it is still a useful example. personally, I believe that western ideas about sexual relationships were born out of the need to limit the spread of STDs, and shouldn't be the final arbiter of how to run your life.### Human: I dont think monogamy developed from an effort to avoid stds, since stds were not on people's radar until the second half of the last century. It came from religious institutions, id argue.### Assistant: Its just a theory of mine. Really, it's beside the point; what matters is that the US is not the final arbiter of relationships

### Human: Finding myself becoming a bit racist. Sincerely CMV.### Assistant: Being annoyed or alarmed by atrocious actions isn't racist. But allowing, for example, the media hype (because that's exactly what it is) of "the knockout game" to negatively influence your opinion of black Americans is another thing altogether. If that's truly the case, make a list of 30 or 40 atrocities that can be attributed to whites, and think about how it makes you feel about being a white person. Everyone is capable of being a horrible person, and every group is capable of horrible actions; there are no exemptions, as far as I can tell. You don't sound racist to me, and I don't think you have "preconceived notions." Rather, it sounds like you're collecting a lot of negative data about blacks and it's making you uncomfortable. That's normal. So for example, if you're walking down the street alone at night and you come into contact with a group of rowdy blacks, you'd be nuts *not* to be at least a little uneasy. But rationally speaking, a group of rowdy whites should elicit the same response. But your comment about "white people fall to Black criminals just as well without a single word spoken of it" needs serious self-examination. Blacks disproportionally fill America's jails despite being under 15% of the overall population. In that light, it's difficult for me to accept anyone's argument that blacks are cut much slack in this society; rather the opposite.### Human: To be fair, blacks commit a lot more violent crime. Being tough on all violent crime as opposed to only arresting a quota of black people to make things even makes life safer for non-violent blacks who live in black communities.### Assistant: I won't argue that point. But numerous studies compellingly suggest blacks do *not* do more drugs than whites, yet are disproportionately jailed for it. Part of the reason is profiling (you can't catch a white guy if you don't pull him over for no reason), part of it is the inability for many blacks to afford decent counsel, part of it is I don't know what – I won't claim expertise here. I do know this: whenever I or any of my white friends got caught with weed, we never got arrested; not even those of us with quantity. That's just anecdotal evidence, but it sure made a big impression on me.### Human: Are there similar stats for violent crime?### Assistant: I highly doubt whites get cut any slack for violent crime, but I've read no such studies. I think (yes, this is what I think; I have no statistical evidence, obviously) the police who caught me with dope had little interest in screwing up my life. I was a white guy in an affluent town; I would turn out okay. And as it happens, I did. But had I gone to jail, I probably wouldn't have turned out okay. And this is my issue with profiling. True, blacks caught with drugs broke the law, and "deserved" to go to jail. But the inequality in the justice system widens the divide.

### Human: CMV: The exponential increase in human knowledge and technology will be slowed down because of the limited amount of knowledge acquirable in a human lifetime.### Assistant: Do you have any reason to not believe that this would have already occurred if it was going to in the future? We already have disciplines, especially mathematics, that have been developing for thousands of years and we've never hit that limit. I think you mostly touch on the ideas that have *already* prevented those limits from being reached in your post, but don't explain why the rules are changing. The reason I don't believe this will happen (at least not in the near future-- the introduction of advanced deep learning tech will almost certainly produce information that is beyond the grasp of human knowledge today.) is because once we discover something, teaching that thing is almost infinitely easier than the time it took to discover that thing. Computers are a great example-- they took almost a century from the prototypical idea of a computer to a computer that would be somewhat recognizable today, and have accelerated greatly over the past 3 decades. However, if you're a computer scientist, you probably spend at most a few classes learning all of that information throughout your academic life. Calculus is the same way. It took (essentially) one guy to write the rules to calculus, something no one before him really grasped, and now anyone interested in mathematics can learn that information in a year or two. Essentially it boils down to the fact that you don't have to "relearn" the info in every human life time. A college intro class can give you enough of a compressed version of past knowledge to at least have a bare-bones understanding of it and move on to more complex topics, before being able to (hopefully) contribute to the field.### Human: Another related point is that people are increasingly specialized these days than in ancient times. The volume of information to learn about a broad subject like mathematics is indeed too much to reach the limit of human understanding but instead of studying all of mathematics, a mathematician will take a course or two in each branch of mathematics during their undergraduate education and then switch to highly specialized courses that only a few people in the world actually understand. This would place the mathematician at the forefront of human knowledge in this particularly field of mathematics and thus allow them to contribute new ideas to that field without having to know everything about mathematics. As we gain more and more knowledge, people can become exponentially more specialized so that they can still learn everything about their field within a reasonable amount of time.### Assistant: An interesting thought is that there has speculation as to the last person to know all of mathematics, as in the currebt knowledge base. There's some debate as to who it is, but that we can draw even a blurry line in the sand and say that after that line, it's been impossible to know everything, is incredible.### Human: Crazy. We just had this discussion in a class and we concluded it was Leonardo Da Vinci. Is this the accepted answer or who are the other candidate??### Assistant: I'd say it was later. The most common answers are Euler or Gauss. Gauss lived significantly later but he was absolutely insane at Mathematics (not that Euler wasn't).### Human: Euler is my favorite science figure to bring up in discussion. He figured out so much of modern science that multiple equations and constants were named by the person who could either discover it second or prove Euler correct.

### Human: CMV: If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them.### Assistant: This post was just dripping in emotion, something I try to shy away from in this sub because I really think it weakens any argument. But I'll bite. I view the world through a social lens, and I believe that human beings are largely creatures of our society. It is our social context that influences how we act, what we think, and who we ultimately end up being. Variables such as socioeconomic status, education, country of birth, gender, race, family environment, etc. all influence how a person interacts with their social environment. The main flaw in your argument here is that you believe people are consciously making the choice to have a child, while understanding the greater social consequences that this decision will have. This is simply not true. When a person grows up in poverty, with limited access to parenting, enrichment, a healthy lifestyle, and ultimately education, they are less likely to achieve this understanding. They may choose to have a child without understanding social consequences such as Medicaid or food stamps. OR, they may not have had access to quality education and thus lack family planning resources. The belief that poor people are "at the bottom of society" because they make poor decisions - not because they simply entered this world with a much emptier social toolkit and are trying to build a life with what little they have - is where we fundamentally disagree. Many people who live below or near the poverty line have happy lives. So I don't think it is much of a stretch for them to think that their children could have happy lives as well.### Human: "Poor" does not mean stupid. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they literally cannot comprehend that raising a child is hard and costs a lot of money.### Assistant: Pretty sure I never used that word.### Human: >you believe people are consciously making the choice to have a child, while understanding the greater social consequences that this decision will have You just said that poor people are incapable of even knowing that it costs money and time to raise a child. You just called poor people stupid. It does not take an education to know that raising a child is costly. Most poor people are not that foolish. If anyone was incapable of realizing that children take a monetary and time commitment, then that person has much bigger problems than being poor.### Assistant: I did NOT say that they don't understand that it takes time and money to raise a child. I'm sure every person is aware of that. I was replying to the OP's discussion on welfare, health insurance, homelessness, etc. Lacking a fluent understanding of the welfare system and the interconnected complexities that make it up does not make someone stupid. I'm an educated person who doesn't understand it fully either. Basically, OP was saying that someone should fully understand all of these elements and use this when calculating whether or not they can afford to have a child. The reality is, most people don't do that, and most people don't fully understand how the system works. Particularly those who don't have access to education and resources.### Human: If welfare is even an issue, then that means that the parents cannot pay for the child. Period. Again as I said, most poor people are smart enough to know if they cannot pay for their child. If they choose to have a child that they cannot pay for, they are not only raising their child in poverty, but they might also be putting a financial burden on the taxpayers of their country. They are not giving their child what he/she deserves, and they are using other peoples money. I call that wrong.### Assistant: You are operating under the assumption that the economic circumstances that a person has when they choose to have a child are the same economic circumstances they will have for the 18 years that the child is dependent on them. What if someone chooses to have children when they are financially stable and then gets laid off?### Human: Then the circumstances changed. When they had the child, they thought they could pay for it, and therefore were in the right. You cannot just make the child go away, and the parent(s) were operating under the belief that they would have the money to pay for their child. I would say, based on OP, that this CMV is about people who have a child and know that they cannot pay for it. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the discussion if someone due to unforeseen circumstances is no longer able to pay for their child.### Assistant: > Then the circumstances changed. When they had the child, they thought they could pay for it, and therefore were in the right. That's a fair point! To be totally frank, I got a little lost in the OP because it came off as more of a tantrum than a well-framed argument. So I tried to focus my rebuttal on parts of the argument that stood out to me. I wasn't arguing that people should have children regardless of their financial status. I was more stating that people are a product of their social context, something that the OP completely ignored. A person living below the poverty line may still have a fulfilling and happy life, and may feel hopeful that they can provide an even better life to their own children. Maybe they won't be successful, but their motives in making that decision are not rooted in selfishness as OP is stating. Also, "using other peoples money" isn't inherently wrong. I use taxpayers' money when I go to the doctor, when I benefit from a newly researched medication, when I go to the library, to my university, when I drive on a freshly paved road, the list goes on. I benefit from taxpayers money every day. It doesn't offend me that some of it is being used to feed hungry children, educate them, and hopefully keep them healthy.### Human: > A person living below the poverty line may still have a fulfilling and happy life Well if they can give their kids a happy life they can afford the kids, in accordance with the OP. Quality of life and good upbringing are important, arbitrary poverty lines are not. >"using other peoples money" isn't inherently wrong The problem here is we have incompatible viewpoints as far government spending goes. The liberal "help everyone" and the conservative "you're on your own" are impossible to reconcile, and I doubt either of us will convince the other to change their mind regarding this.### Assistant: > and I doubt either of us will convince the other to change their mind regarding this. Alright, that's fair. No point really continuing the conversation then, I suppose.

### Human: CMV: The only true way to break the cycle of poverty and crime in the black community is to equally fund all public schools### Assistant: [New Jersey has tried this, and it hasn't really worked.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district) Especially when you get to high schools, where the better funded inner city schools do far worse than their less funded suburban counterparts.### Human: I don't think one small state trying to meet the bare minimum requirements in the 80s is really a fair shake. You constantly have students moving in and out, you have the quality teachers avoiding working at bad schools because they pay less, etc. If every school in the country paid the same wages and had the same standards, we might stand a better chance.### Assistant: New Jersey began the *Abbot* funding program/court order in the 80s, but has been doing it ever since. These schools have been better funded for decades and are still awful. Same wages and standards across all schools seems likely to push good teachers even more to suburban schools where there are fewer discipline problems and the work is easier. Teaching in a school full of very poor kids is incredibly hard, and teachers want to be paid more to work there generally.### Human: New Jersey is a pretty poorly run state in general. I don't think one states attempt at the program is a good enough trial. I don't think having the same wages and standards would push all teachers to suburban schools. If inner city schools are of equal quality, they will churn out their own home grown educators who will prefer to work in the community they grew up in, especially if they get paid the same. Noone goes into teaching for money, I would think there would be plenty of teachers who would go where their work would be the most rewarding in turning lives around, especially if they got paid the same.### Assistant: > Noone goes into teaching for money, I would think there would be plenty of teachers who would go where their work would be the most rewarding in turning lives around, especially if they got paid the same. This is a *terrible* argument. Teaching is good, but it isn't pure altruism and charity. Teaching isn't a non-profit. The amount of stipends that teachers get to go teach in the MS Delta are insane, but they cannot get teachers. The MS delta has generations of issues to overcome, but no amount of money is going to fix the situation for a long long time.

### Human: Cocaine should be legal. CMV### Assistant: My only issue with cocaine is the barrier for overdose. How much cocaine does it take to kill yourself? Is it independent of medical conditions, or are some people randomly prone to overdose? Would there be regulations on purity? I would be worried that it's just too easy to kill yourself with the stuff. People could get hurt by chance. Spiking the prom punch with vodka won't kill anyone, because lethal doses of alcohol are easily detected. No one ever died from eating a weed brownie... but what about a coke donut? Simple pranks could turn lethal.### Human: >How much cocaine does it take to kill yourself? [15 effective doses](http://i.imgur.com/JlhShZg.jpg). By comparison, alcohol takes 10 doses, and heroin takes 5. >Would there be regulations on purity? Even without government regulations, it would still be pure, certainly more than under prohibition. It's very cheap to produce. There's no reason why it shouldn't be pure. >what about a coke donut? I don't think you can eat cocaine, as far as I know.### Assistant: > alcohol takes 10 doses, Wait. So if someone notices the effects of 1 drink, 10 is going to kill them? Sounds like BS to me.### Human: 1 drink is less than 1 effective dose.### Assistant: I'm a cheap date.### Human: meow

### Human: CMV: Libertarianism is a flawed ideology because it oversimplifies the nature of human social interactions.### Assistant: You are coming to this conclusion based on the bizarre rantings of a small subset of libertarians that are popular on the internet. There are several flaws with your reasoning. There is no "grand unified theory" of libertarian thought. A *lot* of discussion goes on about what does or doesn't constitute "aggression". A lot of discussion goes on about what is or is not a necessary component of government. But your view that libertarianism ignores the messy "patchwork of evolutionary hacks, emergent properties, and game theoretical quirks" that makes up human social life is perhaps the *most* bizarre. Libertarians completely understand and accept this idea. Indeed, it is statists that seem to want to reduce all human social life to a grand unified theory, because government is exactly that grand unified theory. One monopoly on force that provides one answer to the messy world of human interactions. Libertarians want to *let* people get on with their messy "patchwork of evolutionary hacks, emergent properties, and game theoretical quirks" without any more interference from government than is absolutely necessary to minimize the aggression inherent in that messy patchwork. No one can figure that out well enough to "control it" without massively infringing on the rights of individuals in order to promote the collective idea of what is proper behavior. Any time they try, it turns into a disaster.### Human: I think OP is conflating Libertarianism with Objectivism even though Ayn Rand rejected Libertarianism and even though most Libertarians are not Objectivists. To be fair, the Objectivist Libertarians do tend to be extremist Libertarians.### Assistant: More like /r/anarcho_capitalism who do inded claim to be the only real libertarians.### Human: I've never seen ancaps say they're the only real libertarians. If you have evidence I'd like to see it. (And at risk of the no true Scotsman fallacy, even if you do find it, those people are wrong)### Assistant: Maybe you should hang around a bit more often /r/anarcho_capitalism then. If you want proof, go around searching for the "finally converted to anarcho capitalism" thread that pop up all couple of weeks or so. They even have a saying that goes along the lines of "whats the difference between a libertarian and anarcho capitalist? about six months" because "anarcho capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertariansim" etc. pp.### Human: Ancaps such as my self often shortcut 'miarchist libertarian' to capital 'l' Libertarian. And then further shortcut 'anarchist libertarian' to simply ancap. I see us distancing ourselves more and more from the word libertarianism completely, than claim that we are the only true libertarians. To muddy these waters further, we have socialistic libertarians.

### Human: CMV: Romantic relationships in high school are not worth the trouble### Assistant: The earlier you have your first serious relationship, the earlier you mature and become better at having serious relationships. Your first relationship is always going to be a learning experience, why not have it when you are young?### Human: As a teenager, this is basically the mindset most people in high school have### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: For the most part, the ones who just want sex generally don't start relationships. Instead they'll just have one night stands and FWB### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Well Im not sure about other schools but ours is a lot more open minded about that kind of thing

### Human: CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle### Assistant: You made it subjective when you said: >I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head. Thus, you open the possibility that someone may choose otherwise. As an adult, I am responsible for managing my own risk. If I take a leisurely early morning ride on the sparsely populated boardwalk by the beach, who are *you* to tell *me* your subjective choice is better than mine? You might as well say there's no good reason to go skydiving, or there's no good reason to ride a motorcycle. A good reason for either of those activities is that it brings people joy.### Human: By deciding against you put the risk of your potential and unneeded health burden on society. If someone hits you with a car you might scar them with your death forever. Hitting you is bad enough, but now they have to live with manslaughter. You are much more likely to be hit on bike than on foot. You statistically raise the cost of all those who share your health insurance. Your temporary comfort should not injure my wallet. Similar reasons are why seat belts are mandatory, they lower societal burden. If you are not comfortable wearing a helmet you should skip the bike entirely.### Assistant: >By deciding against you put the risk of your potential and unneeded health burden on society. I do lots of things where I put myself at greater risk. I ride a motorcycle, which is way more risky than riding a car. I scuba dive, which is in no way necessary. So statistically, I raise the cost of all those who share my health insurance. Yet, I do them anyway. What do **you** do that puts yourself at a higher risk than is necessary? >Your temporary comfort should not injure my wallet. And your wallet should not have decision making power over everyone else's activities.### Human: If you are scuba diving do you take the appropriate safety precautions. When I play paintball I wear a mask, bug spray and have a first aid kit. I would hope whenever anyone does any activity they do it as safely as possible. Do what you want, but do it safely.### Assistant: Really? You hope that while driving a car, everybody is wearing a flame retardant suit, a crash helmet, and a HANS device? You also hope they've reinforced the chassis with a roll-bar? Bollocks. Nobody does anything as safely as possible.### Human: Stop being hyperbolic, your knew what I meant, but these word things are so damned inefficient at their one job. There are sane levels of safety and risk mitigation. Driving cars is dangerous it kills around 35,000 people in the USA each year. Perhaps more safety precautions should be mandated. In addition to seat belts and airbags that in most jurisdictions car insurance is compulsory. Some states require the passenger to not collapse when the vehicle rolls upside, so we are closer to what you suggested than you might think.

### Human: CMV: Caitlyn Jenner should have been arrested for the car accident she caused in February.### Assistant: You do not just get arrested just for causing an accident, even if a fatality is involved. The police must have reason to believe that you were commiting more than a traffic Infraction, like you were using your vehicle as a weapon or were under the influence of alcohol. This is not the case in your example. There is no legal precident for the arrest you are calling for.### Human: So for the sake of argument, if I just drove into the back of someone with no probable cause, and someone died, I would not be charged? That seems a little counter-intuitive?### Assistant: Being charged with a crime and being arrested are two entirely different things.### Human: so it's reasonable to charge her?### Assistant: Based on CA motor law, I'd say yes. You're required to drive at a speed that is appropriate for traffic and weather conditions, speed limit notwithstanding. But that wasn't OP's question.### Human: You're right, but I think he was using "arrested" and "charged" colloquially.### Assistant: Possibly, but it's a legal matter so I'm going to be specific.

### Human: CMV: The world would be a better place if everybody obtained their news from at least two sources - one left-wing, and one right-wing.### Assistant: 1. If I watch Fox News and MSNBC, I don't get some balanced view. I just get two sources of, IMO, idiots yelling and screaming. 2. If I am biased already, exposing myself artificially doesn't make me want to believe that source. It just gives me something to be actively biased against. "That O'Reilly, he's on another insane rant again!" See [Hostile Media Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect)### Human: 1. True, but isn't that a reflection of the quality of the news sources, rather than their ideological position? 2. I'm not sure I agree. Once again, this is more a reflection of the poor quality of O'Reilly's political analysis. I'm based in the UK, and the two examples I was thinking of are the Guardian and the Economist. Both reputable news sources, polar opposites ideologically. I think reading both is valuable.### Assistant: Here's the problem though: The fact that they *are* "right-wing" and "left-wing" "news sources" already indicates a problem with their quality as sources of actual news; the news isn't supposed to be editorialized when given, it's supposed to present the facts. At the very worst, the bias should be in what *news* gets reported, not what *spin* they put on that news. Another part of the problem: You are here, presumably, because you operate under the assumption that you are sometimes wrong, and therefore should challenge your views. As someone who works with customer service and who, until recently, lived with 2 baby boomers, I can assure you that this is absolutely not the normal state of human beings. There's a reason for things like confirmation bias and the hostile media effect that /u/caw81 mentioned in the post this is in response to: humans absolutely hate to admit when they're wrong, and can hold on to wrong beliefs through absolutely insane amounts of evidence to the contrary.### Human: Great points! I'll respond to each paragraph separately. 1) I think the editorialization (is that a word?) is, in a way, beneficial. If we wanted just the facts, we would read Reuters or AP press releases. But that would be slightly empty. The bare facts are just the starting point - it's the discussion that follows which helps shape public opinion, and which, ultimately, influences the world. 2) This I agree with. Some people are utterly entrenched in their viewpoint, and are not open to counterarguments. And that's a bit shitty. But even if we disregard these people, I still believe that the world would be a better place if everyone who is, shall we say, "politically engaged" would read a wide range of news sources.### Assistant: Even Reuters and AP are inherently editorialized through omission, selection, language, geography, and so forth. You can't really have "Just the facts" unless you have all the facts.

### Human: CMV: People who are attracted to far right ideology are more likely to be dangerous and mentally unstable.### Assistant: I would point out that there are more instances of anti-Trump protesters attacking Trumpeteers than the reverse. Plus, the riots committed after Trump's win versus Obama's win. But in terms of mass shootings and actual, premeditated violence, you are right, far-right is worse than Islam. (But don't view this as a justification to ignore Islam).### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I believe the OP was talking in terms of what happens in Western borders. Internationally, you're absolutely right, Islam has a far greater body count (I'm quite sure this is even if you account for proportion). But in the states Islam isn't as bad as the far right. (But I would say this is partially because the smartest and richest Muslims have the most likelihood and ability to move to America, so it's a selective group of Muslims entering -- American Muslims are representative of middle class Muslims in the Muslim world, not the everyday ones.)### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Yeah they are definitely Western countries. In those countries, Islam is causing a lot more trouble than far right movements, but in the states, it's the other way around.

### Human: I believe there are too many Pokémon. CMV.### Assistant: You underestimate how creative people can be. For instance, Magic: The Gathering, the biggest card game in the world- guess how many cards it has? Around 15,000. Every single one is different. It's own name, ability, everything. There are [250+ variations on "Counter target spell" alone](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+[counter]+[target]+[spell]). I see no reason why they couldn't come up with several thousand different little monster things. There's literally no rules to making a Pokemon. Just make this cute monster thing, done. And don't tell me they're getting less creative with the new generations. I somehow remember "brown line" and "three brown lines together", as well as "pink blob" and "purple blob" and "purple gas cloud" being legitimate pokemon.### Human: > guess how many cards it has? Around 15,000. Every single one is different. It's own name, ability, everything. Technically, a lot of cards are functional reprints, like Grizzly Bears versus Runeclaw Bear or Searing Spear versus Lightning Strike. Anyway, I don't believe the comparison with MtG is valid here. One of the shticks of MtG is that they visit a new world each year, so you have the Gothic horror world, the Greek mythology world, the city-on-an-inverted-mountain world, etc. This naturally leads to much more creative freedom; Pokémon doesn't do this since all regions are pretty similar in this aspect.### Assistant: >Pokémon doesn't do this since all regions are pretty similar in this aspect. If you'll allow a somewhat simple argument, despite similarities between the Arctic and Antarctica, you'll only find polar bears to the north, and penguins to the south. Disparate, but similar areas can have wildly different wildlife.### Human: I mean thematic, not geographical. The reason why MtG can have Greek gods one year, then, I don't know, do pirates next year, is because they literally visit different worlds each year, so the *genre* of the game itself changes. While Pokémon also has a large variety of creatures like MtG, because the genre or the setting's theme are constant, a lot of Pokémon feel completely weird. For example, sure, the Pokémon based on animals don't have this problem, but consider something like Probopass. If it appeared on a region based on Polynesia, sure, it would fit. Instead it didn't.### Assistant: Sure, the genre of each generation changes, but not the continuity. New cards are added to the pool of existing cards. Unless they increase the number of cards they create per generation, the amount of new content they'll be adding will grow to be less and less significant. eg. This year is Pirates, but because there are already 20 other genres adding one more really doesn't change much in terms of the overall themes of the game. This should continue to be the case. I think your criticism of Pokemon's lack of thematic diversity. The Pokemon world has a [ton of different biospheres (the north part of Sinnoh is frozen over, compared to the tropical vacation spot in Cinnabar island) and large climate variation](http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_world). Each location is shown to have its own culture (consider how somber Lavender town is, compared to the very traditional Ecruteak City). Obviously they could expand on those themes, but you have to remember that it's a game marketed towards kids. The Japanese version uses the most basic system of writing (no kanji) so that people of all levels of literacy can enjoy it. While I think it would be cool to have really "exotic" cultures represented, the novelty would be lost on the very large demographic of players that don't have the cultural context for it. I think your criticism of Pokemon not being in appropriate locations is fair, but there's more to it than their appearance. Nosepass' (you can't catch a wild Probopass) design is based on both the Easter Island statues **and** magnetism (all of its ingame descriptions center around magnetism and how it's compass-like), so it's found in a location that is known for being electromagnetic. There are probably Pokemon that fit your point, though.

### Human: CMV: I think bitcoin will never be used by the masses as a currency.### Assistant: > It's subject to 51% attacks [..] Yes, but such an attack is fairly obvious and not really beneficial for one particular government. To see what and what not an attacker can do read [this document](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power). > It solves a problem not many people have. About 5 billion people (?) do not have access to western banking services, and will not be allowed in even if they have the funds to pay for an account. > I can easily pay for my day to day stuff with cash, and pay for things online instantly with my credit or debit card. While paying ridiculously high, *mandatory* fees. > I have to send the bitcoins and then wait several minutes awkwardly at the cashiers desk for the transaction to occur. Yes, Bitcoin has only existed for about ~5 years which explains the lack of dedicated hardware for POS. (Btw, [BIP70](https://github.com/greenaddress/bips/blob/bip-payment-request-instant-confirmations/bip-0070.mediawiki) more or less solves slow transactions.) > The new distribution of wealth would be ridiculous. Maybe. Isn't the distribution of wealth ridiculous after Microsoft, Apple, Shell, Wallmart, BP and Samsung became market leaders? Bitcoin would be just another example of such an 'investment'. It is very very likely the private keys of early coins have been lost forever. In the early days, it didn't take much to generate a 1000 coins so losing it meant no monetary loss to the previous owner. > With a bank I can log in securely anywhere in the world, and set limits on how much can be sent. I also confirm every transaction from my account via sms. And that's exactly the service banks should provide. This convenience can be implemented even though banks do not hold the bitcoins per se. That is, they can't move them around without a second confirmation. Please read [this document](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0011.mediawiki). > It requires a level of basic technological understanding that the majority of people don't have, or rather, don't feel like using on a subject like bitcoin. And they shouldn't. Just like the internet in 1990. > I think the vast majority of companies currently accepting bitcoin are doing it for the "bitcoin bump" where after announcing they accept bitcoin there's a rush of bitcoin users using it. Fair enough. But this doesn't say anything about Bitcoin itself, right? > Furthermore, I think if you go to the bitcoin subreddit and browse it for five minutes, it's obvious that the vast majority of people there are mostly concerned about bitcoins price, and are holding bitcoins as an investment. Yes, and most shareholders of Tesla are in it for their own profits also; this doesn't mean Tesla is worthless. > The only real use I can see for bitcoin is as an easy way to pay for drugs and transfer money without fees. A lot of computer scientists are not *that* interested in Bitcoin as a currency, although it is a great way to prove its utility and to build a secure network. On top of Bitcoin, systems such as Namecoin can be implemented - providing secure, censorship-proof identity management. This has the potential to make the internet way more secure than it is now. A lot of your arguments apply to Bitcoin *as it is right now*. I think you need to be more open to its potential.### Human: Δ This post swayed my view about this topic. I held a neutral one in the past, with positives and negatives about both sides. This post made me see that many of the negatives I saw for cryptocurrencies actually were a bit baseless or became moot points.### Assistant: Well, let me see if I can change it back. /u/mzial skimmed over one of the most important problems. Bitcoin is designed to be deflationary. Bitcoins get harder to mine over time and there's a set maximum number of coins that can ever be produced. This is great for early adopters because it means that as Bitcoin gets more popular their holdings get more and more valuable. But it's not so great for an economy that tries to use Bitcoin as its primary currency; deflation is pretty bad for an economy. More generally Bitcoin has no way to regulate the money supply or the rate of inflation/deflation. There's a reason pretty much every developed country uses fiat currency controlled by a central bank instead of, say, gold (which Bitcoin is designed to be a lot like), and it's not because they're fascists who want to control as much of society as possible. Monetary policy is a very useful tool for keeping an economy healthy. Small recessions can be stopped entirely by well managed monetary policy, and even larger ones can be kept from doing as much damage. Without that regulation mechanism business cycle fluctuations in a Bitcoin economy would be much more damaging.### Human: It doesn't necessarily have to be used as a *countries* main currency, the OP never said it had to be. Keeping competing currencies allows existing tools and methods to still apply (for those currencies, of course). Besides that, you have to consider one main negative point of inflationary currency: it leaves the whole system in a state where all the existing debt cannot possibly be repaid. Until now, there has been a reset every once in a while, but I fail to see how inflationary currencies can be a sustainable solution. (Although I'm also not sold on Bitcoin as a main currency.)### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: But I don't think that's the point. If we have an economy with 100$, and there will never be more, I can still divide these dollars into smaller cents, and millicents etc. That doesn't change the fact that if you hold 20 dollars you hold 20 dollars, and if their value increases, so does your share. Since it can never decrease in value due to your holdings of 20% of the total share at any time, regardless of divisors, this is the deflationary issue that many are concerned with. In a monetary economy with fiat currency your money will decrease in value with inflation. In a bitcoin economy your money will increase in value since there is no other solution.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Actually, you can. Let's say you need a loan of 1 BTC. Seeing you in great need I might offer to lend you 1 BTC. I can even charge you interest if you need the coin so much that you agree to pay back 1.1 BTC by the end of the term.### Assistant: And part of the risk that you accept in making that loan, for the 10% possible profit, is that if the external value of Bitcoin rises 1000% during the term the borrower is unlikely to repay at all.### Human: That is an interesting way of looking at it, but that only holds true while Bitcoin is a secondary currency. As soon as real economy starts to take place (closed loops excluding fiats), BTC won't be so volatile anymore and loans (with interest) can easily become commonplace.### Assistant: That is unlikely to happen so long as taxes have to be paid in the national currency.

### Human: CMV Subjective aspects of sports (define "sports" as broadly as you wish) should be eliminated as much as possible.### Assistant: One of the things that sports bodies aim to do is to create consistency where practical between elite and professional sports on one end and recreational/child sport on the other. So, while you do see judges review in elite sport, you see very little electronic judging. The one exception to this is racing sports where even at junior levels electronics have to be used to deal with time differentials of less than one second. Athletes are generally quite accepting of the human failings of judges/referees/umpires as long as those officials are striving to be fair. The big judging scandals at the Olympics have occurred when judges have been showed to be colluding. However, these problems went up to the highest levels of the sports governing bodies, and when corruption is allowed to flourish at that level, a sport has bigger problems that biased judging. So, something like gymnastics has worked pretty well compared to figure skating despite them both being judged in pretty similar ways. Figure skating has had corruption issues both minor and major. Ultimately, I think we have to listen carefully to athletes' groups within sports governing bodies. When they are concerned about judging systems, we should support them in the quest for changes. So, I think something like baseball and diving is currently fine, and I think the changes made in figure skating were long overdue when they happened.### Human: Your references to gymnastics and figure skating encourage me to clarify. I have issues with, but no solution to, things that are inherently subjective. Artistic scores and the like are inherently subjective and cannot be corrected. Whether a skater completed the turn or landed an eighth early is objective, and I think judges should have to look at the slow-motion tape before making a call. Perhaps they will still be corrupt, but at least they have the right information going in. I agree with your statement that the figure skating changes were long overdue. I disagree that we should listen to governing bodies as dispositive. Certainly their opinions matter. But for something like baseball, I think that the claim that umpires are useful for balls and strikes is demonstrably and objectively incorrect. The fact that the Cubs (as a random example) feel otherwise does nothing to persuade me.### Assistant: I didn't say we should listen to the sports governing bodies, I said I think we have to listen to athletes. After all, they are ones with the most to win or lose. Actually, there are ways to make judged sports more objective and the skating rules are an example -- even though it is still judged, it used to be pretty much whatever you wanted to give. Now things like difficulty points are awarded on the basis of whether you did something or not - yes or no. Still subjective and still includes the artistic component of course, but it's a lot better. But, I used skating and gymnastics as examples of the problems being with the intentional bias of some judges. The vast majority of sport is NOT elite and professional sport. Sports try to create as consistent a system as possible between the different levels.### Human: My apologies on the conflation of governing bodies and the athletes themselves. I will edit my response to be that I think it is harmful to the nature of sport for athletes to support subjectivity. I refer to my other posts for why. As to your second paragraph, I agree. I think that the recent changes to figure skating (I don't know of any changes in gymnastics) are a move in the right direction, and probably as good as you can get for that sport. But for things where there is an objective answer (balls/strikes), that should govern. Observation is irrelevant; actuality is key. I think your final paragraph actually supports my view. Sports do try to create consistent systems. So they should be consistent. Subjectivity creates difference, which in this context should be avoided. I see how it might be that you want little league to be judged the same as MLB, but that seems to be a matter of access to resources rather than ideal play. That's where my "as much as possible" comes in. The ideal little league umpire will be computer-level perfect, and we accept the variance from the ideal because of time and resources. But that doesn't mean that, when the time and resources are available, we shouldn't seek them as well.### Assistant: But who are we to tell athletes how to play their sports? Edit: And no apology required, but thank you.### Human: I have no objection to people doing whatever they want. I have objection to people claiming to be following particular rules and then following only mushy versions of those. That said, if you really want the delta tonight, this angle is one that I think might actually work.### Assistant: I say this in a friendly way. That last line made me laugh. I am not delta farming. I come here mostly because I enjoy looking at things from multiple angles. I am certainly not passionate about Olympic sport judging automation despite how I might sound. ;-)### Human: I wasn't meaning to imply you were. I just know that my first (and only) delta made me feel good because it was about something I am passionate about (making people see the pragmatic flaw in their view). I was just trying to hint that this line made me actually start to think (although not change), unlike some of the others.### Assistant: I didn't take it negatively. It's an interesting debate about, What is fair in sports and who are they for? Obviously, the kids don't think about this, but most baseball fans and baseball players love the tradition of their sport. That tradition is an integral part of their love of the game. As a casual fan, I find it hard to argue with diehards and those in the sport. Here's an interesting question -- why hasn't Major League Baseball gone to electronic balls and strikes? There must be a reason. Nobody likes controversy.### Human: Thanks for making me think today!### Assistant: Likewise!

### Human: CMV: Jennifer Lawrence is wrong about the pay-gap and has no data to prove she's right.### Assistant: Looking at individuals is tricky. You are right that there are individual factors that play for each actor/actress and for each movie. But overall, consider that [Jennifer Lawrence was the highest-paid actress in 2015](http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2015/08/20/the-worlds-highest-paid-actresses-2015-jennifer-lawrence-leads-with-52-million/), and she is *still* making less than multiple male co-stars from this movie. And overall, the [highest-earning male actors](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45mmei/the-worlds-highest-paid-/) make *way* more than the [highest-earning female actresses](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45eddhj/the-worlds-highest-paid-/). Jennifer Lawrence is the highest paid actress ($54 million), but she made way less than the highest paid actor (Robert Downie Jr, who made $80 million). There are only 4 women who made over $20 million in 2015. There are 21 men making that much.### Human: Why are we using peak values to determine which side has the advantage. We really should at least be looking at the average or mean. Actually of we could perform a proper probability test against a standard distributing then we might be able to draw some mathematically sound conclusions. Of course that would mean that we'd have to somehow get a large enough sample size with accurate wage counts, which probably isn't possible. Or we could just keep studying outliers and pretending to draw relevant conclusions..... Edit:ignore me and just go read LiberalTerryN's reply### Assistant: > Why are we using peak values to determine which side has the advantage. We really should at least be looking at the average or mean. Why mean? That only makes sense for normal distributions, which most definitely does not apply to actor compensation. In fact, if we go off of only means, it skews so heavily in favor of the outliers anyway. When Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter, the average person in the room is a billionaire. The better metric to capture what we're talking about is to look to see whether there is a systemic bias where female actors capture a smaller percentage of their movies' profits than similarly situated male actors. Then, if male casts pull in greater revenue than female casts, we have to separate it out to ask what percentage of the problem is caused by audiences (not exactly in studios' control) and what is caused by devoting less production/distribution/marketing resources towards movies with female castmembers. It's a complicated problem, but assuming a bell curve where one doesn't exist would just exacerbate the difficulty.### Human: Um a bell curve would be relevant if you exclude the outliers. In your Bill Gates example, he would be removed as an outlier anyway as he would fall far outside of the interquartile range. A bell curve is actually pretty reasonable in any large distribution, though there are exceptions. Mind you I did not recommend only using the mean. Probability tests require plotting the groups against a standard distribution, removing anything outside a certain range ( using the median, average, interquartile range, etc), and then seeing if there is statistical evidence that the male group earns a different amount than tune female group. Edit:ignore me. I am a fool. Read LiberalTerryN's comments. They actually know what they are talking about.### Assistant: > Um a bell curve would be relevant if you exclude the outliers. But actor income doesn't even follow a bell curve even if you exclude outliers. It's a Pareto distribution, with most actors clustered at below-subsistence compensation (supplemented of course with day job income), a handful of working actors who can earn enough to live comfortably on, and a tiny group of elite earners who make more than everyone else combined. How would you purport to compare two groups in this kind of distribution? Why would means, medians, or even anything approximating "average" income be useful for analyzing these groups? Probability and statistics are all about models. I think the bell curve is an awful model to apply to actor incomes. And ignoring outliers in this context is ignoring the bulk of the market, in dollar amounts.### Human: Yeah I just realized that I was completely wrong. I also realised that you know far more than I do and I should probably just shut up.### Assistant: No worries, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, and apologize for getting a little bit aggressive. I honestly just think that actor salary distributions are just too far apart to make useful generalized comparisons anyway. So few people "make it" that trying to hide behind a group comparison is really about individualized comparison. What Jennifer Lawrence is doing here, whether she realizes it or not, is saying "this happened to me in particular because I'm a woman, but I'm not able to prove it." And it sucks because it is essentially impossible to prove or disprove, because the problem only occurs with a handful of people. Maybe it's her agent or her age or her gender or the nature of a particular role that skews the numbers. It's really not possible to separate the factors.

### Human: CMV: "Free Speech Zones" and "Protest Permits" for political rallies are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights### Assistant: It comes down to the need to balance the right of various to individuals to assemble and speak, and the necessity for public property to actually be accessible to the public. The courts have ruled time and again that, while Constitutional rights are natural rights which cannot be removed from an individual without due process of law, rights can be subject to "reasonable" restrictions in order to preserve the rights of all. Here's a hypothetical. Lets say we have a city square which doesn't require a permit to rally or protest in. In this square a group of congregants from a local synagogue have decided to rally so that their voices might be heard by the public. However, a local Klan chapter catches wind of this and is able to mobilize to the same location, on the same day, at the same time, with double the people. They Klan hosts a counter demonstration in the same exact location as the Jewish folks. Now the question is who has the greater right to speak freely and have their voices heard? The Klan because the have more people? The answer is they both have the same right and the best way to ensure that they both are able to say what they want is via a permitting system. As long as permits cannot be denied for reasons other than schedule conflicts they do not inherently limit free speech and, in fact, can serve to ensure that everyone has the ability to speak freely.### Human: I liked your callout to the difference between *mere* rights and *natural* rights. Do you have more information on that? Especially how and which cases courts have ruled in support of that notion? Cheers, thanks!### Assistant: Hm? I never used the term "mere rights". What is it that you want to know more about?### Human: True, I used the word mere to distinguish all the other rights that aren't *natural* rights. I think you draw that contrast in your second sentence? I'm just curious where I read more about the contrast between those two separate concepts of "rights." Apologies if I'm off base with what you wrote. Cheers and thanks!### Assistant: Oh! My mistake, that sentence isn't entirely clear. When I use "rights" near the end of the sentence it is a continuation of "Constitutional rights are natural rights". I think I'll go out on a limb here and say all rights are natural rights because otherwise they would be privileges. The only distinction I'd draw there is in a Constitutional framework where you have explicit rights (ex. free speech) and implicit rights (ex. privacy), but that isn't entirely relevant to the CMV.

### Human: I think purposely not masturbating is idiotic (e.g. r/NoFap) CMV### Assistant: Speaking from the point of view of an avid masturbator, I have seen it impact my life pretty dramatically. I masturbate every day (at least once, usually more), and when I try to stop, I find myself completely unable. Sex addiction is a real thing, and it goes beyond just the need for intimacy or promiscuity. Sex and masturbation (particularly orgasm) releases dopamine and serotonin in the brain, which is a good thing, but they operate similarly to other drugs. Using too much will build up a tolerance, so you need more and more just to achieve the same feeling. Sometimes, if I have masturbated earlier in the day, I can’t achieve erection when my girlfriend wants to have sex that night. I’m only 21 years old. That isn’t good. Unfortunately, it seems to be getting more and more common among males in my age group. I still masturbate excessively, and I am not currently seeking help, but I will need some if I keep going down the path I’m on now.### Human: Is there proof of the link between masturbating and sexual performance? "excessively" is a meaningless word, except when it means: "so much that it affects my life in a negative way" and then it's redundant.### Assistant: I know there have been studies done on it. I'm not in a position to go looking for them right now (work computer), but they do exist. I'm not exceptionally well-read on the subject of chronic masturbation because being exceptionally well-read on that subject would be weird, but my personal experience tells me that fapping is a wonderful thing in moderation as long as you don't overdo it. That said, "overdoing it" is a pretty subjective concept. Basically, if you feel like you are doing it too much, or if you feel like it is negatively affecting your life in some way, you should limit yourself. I think that's a philosophy that stands true with most anything (not just masturbation).### Human: that is exactly what I said.### Assistant: >that is exactly what I said. No this is exactly what you said.### Human: just stop it.### Assistant: Heehee. C:

### Human: I believe that new roads should be built with a bike lane. CMV### Assistant: Roads shouldn't have the bike lanes, the bike lanes should be built seperately between the pedestrian strip and the road, but they should be up on the curb not part of the road. Bike lanes should also divert through parks alleys and whatnot, not only along roads. The reason being that it's very dangerous to ride along with regular traffic. In Australia all new roads **are** built with bike lanes, and incidents have dramatically increased. We're now pushing for the next level up for separated bike paths### Human: > incidents have dramatically increased If you can cite a source for this, you'll have my delta### Assistant: [study on the change in number of incidents between 2001-2206](https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2009/190/7/bicycling-injuries-and-mortality-victoria-2001-2006) (this is the time period that bike lanes were added to the side of roads by simply painting a line alongside) [news article](http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclists-face-fines-as-police-get-tough-20110621-1gcjs.html) [notes on safety upgrades and problems in existing networks](https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bike-futures/10288/) I do agree with you! bike lanes are important, but disagree about the implementation, as it's important to learn from the trials of others around the world### Human: ∆ The studies/articles seem sound, and your points are solid and well taken. Also, I'm impressed a study went nearly 200 years into the future to investigate these issues! EDIT: Oh, Deltabot is offline. Hmm... does /u/koalanotbear report this or do I?### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/koalanotbear. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/koalanotbear)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

### Human: CMV: Problems in personal life do not give a person a right to be rude or mean to others.### Assistant: Having problems at home doesn't give you the right to verbally bully, said mean things etc. Being a human gives you that right.### Human: I can see from most of these comments I failed at wording this correctly: Should problems at home give one a pass in society's mind to be more rude to other people, specifically those with nothing to do with them?### Assistant: There is no duty to not be an asshole to others.### Human: That is true. But is it morally acceptable to you?### Assistant: Do I think it is morally acceptable to be mean to others regardless of my life problems, yes. Why should I care about your feelings? Or why should I sacrifice my comfort (being a jerk) for yours (not wanting mean things said to them)?### Human: That is a valid viewpoint, though not one I share (though I used to).

### Human: CMV: Teachers in America should have incentive-based salaries### Assistant: This actually encourages teachers to avoid teaching smart or gifted children, which can be a major problem. If a kid gets a 98% on the test at the beginning of the year, the smart thing to do is the bare minimum for this kid, because he's probably not going to do much better at the end of the year, at best it's 2%.### Human: How is that any different than now, where teachers are encouraged to focus on the lowest common denominator (no child left behind). This system certainly wouldn't solve that, but it wouldn't worsen it either. The solution to that is classes designed just for the smarter kids (advanced and regular sections).### Assistant: Why would a teacher want to teach an AP class with a bunch of smart kids who could maybe improve 3-5% at best, since they are already well above average.### Human: As a teacher who teaches AP classes, I can say that my students do not begin the school year already knowing the content; instead, they end the school year having learned far more than their peers in same-content non-AP classes. My AP classes would dominate a metric where they are pre- and post-tested on grade-level content.### Assistant: That depends on the test. When I took AP Calc, the grade level content was algebra II. If they say Algebra II is the grade level content, then anyone excelling and taking a class like Calc won't be properly evaluated. If Calc is on the test, it penalizes all the kids not taking Calc### Human: True. But if you compare my AP Calc kids to the regular calc kids on a calc test, my AP Calc kids will show much better gains. I should have said "same content" rather than grade-level.### Assistant: Right, and that's my issue with the system. If Calc is a 12th grade class, then no school or teacher is going to want to risk their salary letting an 11th or 10th grader take Calc.

### Human: CMV: It's completely legitimate to be Islamophobic.### Assistant: >It's not deer doing this, it's not owls, it's not raccoons, it's bears. It *is* deer and owls and racoons though. You are less likely to be harmed in america by an Islamic person than a white person, or a black person etc. White people are more dangerous to you, but you're more scared of Islamic people. Thats why its called a phobia. You're irrationally afraid. You're more afraid of Muslims than cars, but cars are hundreds of times more likely to kill you.### Human: >White people are more dangerous to you, but you're more scared of Islamic people. If you were to account for the math though, what percentage of each religion that you encounter will be violent? If only 1 in 10 muslims are violent but 1 in 50 Christians are violent, yet we see 100 times as many Christians as we do Muslims, that makes us more likely to be attacked by a Christian, yet statistically muslims are more dangerous. Disclaimer: I pulled all these numbers out of my ass for the argument's sake### Assistant: It would still be irrational to be more afraid of Muslims because they'd still be less of a threat to you than christians.### Human: **Assumptions** Probability of being harmed by a muslim = p^m = 1 in 10 = ***0.10% Probability of being harmed by a Christian = p^c =1 in 50 = ***0.02% ***Note: probabilities completely made up for sake of clarity.   **Problem Statement** Say I go downtown for lunch, and it is a nice day so I eat outside. Imagine that within my immediate vicinity there are 100 people not including myself. Out of these 100 people there are 50 Christians and 50 Muslims. Knowing p^m and p^c , Which group would I be mathematically correct in avoiding in order to ensure I am least likely to be harmed?   **Solution** Number of Muslims in my immediate vicinity likely to cause me harm: 50 * 0.10 = 5.0. Number of Christians in my immediate vicinity likely to cause me harm: 50 * 0.02 = 1.0. Therefore, If Muslims are five times more likely to cause me harm than Christians the only time it would ever make sense to be more weary of Christians is if there are five times more total Christians in my immediate vicinity than there are Muslims. There could be 75 Christians and 25 Muslims, and there would still be almost twice as many "harmful" Muslims around me than there would be "harmful" Christians.### Assistant: > Out of these 100 people there are 50 Christians and 50 Muslims This is flawed, statistically speaking, it would be extraordinarily rare for you to find that ratio of Christians to Muslims. If I walked into an average American city I would expect 99 Christians and 1 Muslim (Islam is followed by 0.9% of the US pop). Number of Muslims in my immediate vicinity likely to cause me harm: 1 * 0.10 = .10. Number of Christians in my immediate vicinity likely to cause me harm: 99 * 0.02 = 2.0.### Human: Well, he did say he pulled the numbers out of his ass... Please try to see the forest for the trees.

### Human: CMV: American elected officials and senior civil servants are generally underpaid. Raising their salaries would improve governance.### Assistant: While pay may attract talent, it's no guarantee that it will serve as an incentive to serve well. Also, you have to find a way to make the pay they get AFTER serving unattractive. A congressman might turn their service into a ladder for a different job (lobbying).### Human: Measuring how "well" elected officials serve is fraught with peril because voters have disagreements on what constitutes good policy. This will remain the case after compensation increases. I would consider it a victory if those debates were conducted by a higher caliber of candidate, on all sides.### Assistant: Why do you assume that it would be a higher caliber of candidate, rather than a greedier one? Among the best potential presidential candidates that the Republicans could have put forth in the past 5 presidential election cycles (inclusive of the current) was Colin Powell who refused the job due to the inherent nature of the job, *not* the lack of compensation. As it stands presently, politics attracts people who prefer gaining power and privilege inherent to the job to avoiding the drawbacks inherent to the politics.### Human: I do believe a !delta is warranted in the sense that you refined my view about the presidency being largely exempt from this proposal.### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MuaddibMcFly. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MuaddibMcFly)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: CMV: Americans would never rise up in protest to defend their freedoms### Assistant: What motivation do the American people have to "defend their rights and freedoms"? Americans enjoy a high quality of living and really aren't oppressed to the point that it affects their daily lives. Aside from that, I'd say that the Occupy Movement is a recent example of Americans defending their freedoms. Yes this movement ultimately failed by most measures in that it didn't directly lead to any substantial changes, but it was still a movement of Americans joining together to protest the government and voice their displeasure.### Human: > Americans enjoy a high quality of living and really aren't oppressed to the point that it affects their daily lives. In my opinion, the American people failed to put more pressure on the government regarding mass surveillance and spying. Yes, Americans enjoy a high quality of living, but being spied on by your own country should have warranted major protests. Instead, the American people ultimately let the issue fade, and the NSA operates to this day. You don't necessarily need to be oppressed to the point where it affects your daily life in order to defend your rights. > the Occupy Movement is a recent example of Americans defending their freedoms. This was a protest that was rather small in scale. I'm focusing on a nationwide protest. I just doubt that fact that the American people would ever fight for their rights in the face of government abuse.### Assistant: Do you fully comprehend what a rebellion would actually look like. Business would be closed. Trade would be suspended. Bottom line is that people would lose their income. What the NSA did wasn't good, but it is worth open rebellion on the streets and the loss of personal income. Not really. You're asking people in mass to not get paid for an indefinite time and have an increased risk of harm to body and property. There are alternatives to open rebellion. These alternatives have a lot less problems than loss of income and lack of safety.### Human: I totally understand. I'm not really saying that the American people should have violently protested. What I'm saying is that the lack of response regarding mass surveillance makes me doubt that, in the future, if something changed where our rights needed to be defended, the American people would actually respond.### Assistant: Could it just be that that particular issue is not as salient to other people as it is for you? Unpopular opinion, but I don't care about any of the NSA bullshit. I really, really don't at all. I am not scandalized. I do not care if things change or stay the same. I do not believe it is substantial problem, especially in comparison to things I *do* care about. I speculate that I care less than the average American. But it seems, given how hung up you are on it, that you care a good deal more than average. Assuming that Americans would NEVER have a full scale rebellion under ANY circumstance based on people not freaking out as much as you are about the NSA seems like it depends on other people caring as much about the NSA as you do. If they don't, it's not a very good gauge for how likely people are to protest. I am having a hard time imagining a situation bad enough to warrant a rebellion that would not receive one, especially given that very few things would warrant a rebellion. I believe that something like mass murder, for example, would warrant a rebellion and would absolutely receive one. Someone collecting metadata about phone calls, though, deserves exactly what it got: an unbearable amount of news coverage.### Human: > Could it just be that that particular issue is not as salient to other people as it is for you? It seems that this is where my view is slightly flawed. I think people *should* care more about mass surveillance, but it is true that the issue is not as important for some people. What I see as a lack of dissident against the government, many people believe that mass surveillance wasn't a reason for a mass protest. Although I'm still slightly doubtful that Americans will respond with a greater voice to future abuses of freedoms, you've convinced me that Americans are willing to defend their rights. The issue just has to be, in the opinion of the majority, substantive enough to protest. ∆### Assistant: A point on the mass surveillance. I care about it, but I'm disinclined to do anything about it. I'm not even all the inclined to complain about it as bad. When I heard the news about it my first thought was "Really? You're surprised by this? I thought it was common assumption that's what was going on." It is plain and simple right up the NSAs alley. It's exactly the kind of thing they would do. And when I think about it, where I in their position, with their responsibilities, and their resources... I probably would do the same thing. Can it be abused? Oh yeah. Will it? probably. But there are levels of abuse I am willing to tolerate. My biggest issue with the NSA isn't the surveillance, it's who's doing the surveilling. Now congress... Congress pisses me off.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry Bab2385, 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=Bab2385+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2dlel3/cmv_americans_would_never_rise_up_in_protest_to/cjqzyve\))

### Human: CMV: The "If you can't pronounce it then don't eat it" or the "if you don't recognize it neither will your body" rules for ingredients in processed foods are ignorant and should be ignored.### Assistant: I enjoy a good laugh about people who get pissy over Dihydrogen Monoxide as much as the next guy. Having said that, I actually don't think it's a bad rule of thumb for someone who is trying to make a conscious effort to improve their diet. If you want to improve your diet, you should stick to the following rule: *Where possible, you should try to eat more fresh fruit and veg and less processed food.* If you were to follow the following set of rules instead: *If you can't pronounce it then don't eat it. If you don't recognise it, neither will your body.* then you will end up eating more fresh fruit and veg and less processed food. You will also end up snubbing the odd pack of pre-sliced apples, it's true, but your diet will be improved overall. While it might be overly complicated and a bit ignorant, it certainly does the job. If people are going to jump on to any kind of fad diet, I feel like they could do a lot worse than this one.### Human: True. Kinda like having a personal "It's better safe than sorry" approach to picking your food.### Assistant: /u/delta_baryon's point doesn't hold up for plenty of things that are easy to pronounce but poisonous (nightshade and hemlock, for instance, as /u/gmano pointed out above). /u/delta_baryon's point is also flawed because it is fallacious to think of "apple" or "banana" as simple-to-pronounce ingredients unto themselves while scrutinizing the (questionably) difficult-to-pronounce ingredients of any food which our government happens to require be sold with a nutrition label; being logically consistent demands that we also scrutinize the chemical makeup of those seemingly simple-to-pronounce apples and bananas (despite the lack of a government nutrition label), [which leads us to plenty of difficult-to-pronounce chemicals such as phylloquinone or 3-Methylbut-1-yl Ethanoate](http://i.imgur.com/1Ibu6EJ.png). Simply put, following either of his/her rules will lead to either cherry-picking when to apply the rule...or starvation.### Human: You're assuming that the rule will be applied rigidly by people who understand that it is fallacious to think of *apple* and *banana* as distinct ingredients. My point was about the resultant behaviour from attempting to apply that rule in real life, not what would happen if you attempted to rigidly follow it to the letter. Also, if someone could please point me to all these supermarkets that sell hemlock and deadly nightshade in their produce aisle, that would be just grand. Ta.### Assistant: My post *is* "real life." Real life is that a banana isn't a banana; it is 2-Methylpropan-1-ol and Ethyl Hexanoate...and each of those chemicals is made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles and so on until the boundaries of our current knowledge of physics. When you say your rule works in real life, what you seem to mean is that your rule works only for ignorant people and only if it is applied inconsistently; that doesn't seem like much of a "rule" at all, much less a good one that should change the OP's view.### Human: The rule is about reading labels. Not knowing the configuration of the atoms does not make someone ignorant, nor does it impede their ability to follow the rule as written. Yes, this rule of thumb does not work in all cases. That is because it is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics. The point you are critiquing is claiming that a rule which can be followed easily and gives mostly correct results is better than a rule which requires hours of research before you can eat dinner. I agree with this philosophy and I think you should as well. Feel free to count the number of potassium atoms in your banana. Just don't expect that to be a useful strategy for anyone else.### Assistant: Reading a label has nothing to do with the ability to correctly interpret what is on the label. The pronounciation of a chemical has nothing to do with the healthiness of that chemical. The lack of a food label to read ingredients from has nothing to do with safety of the ingredients of the food. This so-called "rule of thumb" is neither useful nor accurate when used by an average person.### Human: If it leads to better eating habits, then it is better than whatever rule it is replacing. Switching from "If I have to cook, I won't eat it" to this rule is a good move. I am not disagreeing about the deficiencies of this rule. I would hope that most people who already have a more sophisticated understanding of nutrition would see the issues with this rule and choose not to adopt it. For everyone else, this will likely do good. Of course, there will be some people who make worse decisions after adopting this rule. This is unfortunate, but is only a show-stopper if it outweighs the better choices made by those with truly horrendous eating habits.

### Human: CMV: Hearthstone is an objectively bad Card Game.### Assistant: What makes your opinion more objective than anyone else's? I agree that it has poorly written rules (for both text and code), but the rest is just stylistic choices that you disagree with. The bad rules are enough to make it *imperfect* or *flawed*, but I don't see why it would go all the way to a categorically bad game.### Human: Well, I don't think opinions can be objective, either what you believe in is a fact (in which case it's not an opinion) or it's wrong (in which case you change your mind cause willingly believing in something wrong is a no-no). That said with my rudimentary knowledge in game design, the more purely RNG reliant a game is, the less of a 'game' it actually is. Like for example, the 'game' war, where you flip over cards repeatedly and the higher card wins is hardly even a game, as there isn't any level of interactivity or meaningful play. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactivity AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningful_play ). Now I wouldn't go so far as to say hearthstone has no interactivity, that'd be silly. But I will say that the more and more they add rng-based card effects, and the more cases of cards not working in sensible ways occur it will effect, and lower the amount of ability to actually consider the game as well designed in any way. If you have a game where you're playing ping pong with someone but if you try to hit the ball at a specific spot on the paddle the ball just goes through your paddle and you lose, the game wouldn't be very fun, or feel like much of a fair game. In the same way I don't think hearthstone is a good game because it has significant emphasis on RNG elements (much less so than other games that have some RNG effects in them) and, as I said before, doesn't work sometimes.### Assistant: > Well, I don't think opinions can be objective, either what you believe in is a fact (in which case it's not an opinion) or it's wrong (in which case you change your mind cause willingly believing in something wrong is a no-no). What about opinions like "[cilantro tastes like soap](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14curious.html)," "[acquired taste X] tastes good," or "[Activity Y] is more difficult than [Activity Z]." Each of those statements could be true for me, but false for you, and I think that the question of Hearthstone being good or bad is the same type of question. In *my* opinion, a game is good when it succeeds at its design goals (usually involving the players having fun) regardless of what its other qualities are. People enjoy all sorts of games, including ones with negligible amounts of meaningful decisions available. Hearthstone has registered over 30 million accounts, so I'd say that it is a success.### Human: Because taste and other things are Qualia, and are different for each person and therefore not objective things. EDIT: Taste as in how we taste things like food, not taste as in preference in arts >.> If you want to argue that the good-ness or bad-ness of a game isn't an objective matter go right ahead, that's something I'd very much be interested to hear. But personally I do not believe sales are a good sign of how good a game is. I also don't think that a successful thing makes it a well designed or good thing. (Both of which I'd be open to having my V Cd on, if you want to explain why you think your opinion)### Assistant: But fun is subjective, isn't it? Some people enjoy Monopoly, and have a great time playing it. In my opinion, those people are fools, and Monopoly is among the most un-fun uses of time imaginable. But to quote Lebowski: that's just, like, my *opinion,* man. Some people enjoy hiking, others hate it. Some enjoy cars, and spend fortunes on expensive car components and fixing up older models. Some enjoy MTG (as you seem to), but others find it overly complicated and expensive. You're not wrong for liking magic, and they're not wrong for disliking it. If games are about having fun (and that's basically the pillar my argument is resting on), then it seems to me that game quality is as subjective as fun itself. You could, I suppose, make the argument that games are art in and of themselves, distinct from whether or not they are enjoyable. But to me, that's missing the core of what a game is. (And ignores that art is also subjective in nature. Why should all card games hew toward some optimal idea of what constitutes a "best card game"? Who decides what that optimum is?) To turn this argument on it's head: If games are objective, and MTG is objectively a good game, then anyone who dislikes it is incorrect. That seems like an indefensible argument to me.### Human: [removed]

### Human: CMV: I don't think Western military intervention is universally bad### Assistant: I'm sure there are examples where intervention has been relatively successful, but the main question is whether intervention is good as a policy. You mentioned four cases that were relatively successful, but there are dozens of *unsuccessful* examples. At best, we're looking at a pretty low success rate. The framework you listed doesn't account for many factors that are impossible to know ahead of time. For example, what new government is going to be in charge? The main problem with Iraq was that it left a power vacuum which allowed extremists to take hold. The exact same thing happened in Libya. In the past, we've just put a pro-U.S. guy in charge, sometimes with disastrous results, but think of how that looks to the rest of the world. We're literally toppling governments so we can choose who is in charge. Not only is it incredibly anti-democratic, it often comes back to bite us in the ass when the people revolt, and it makes other large powers (like Russia) very anxious because we're grabbing power at will. That's one of the main problems in Syria. Assad is a Russian ally. If we topple him, Russia would see that as an incredible provocation and national threat. We certainly would if they did something similar to us. It's impossible to account for all the implications of intervening, so it's best used as little as possible.### Human: > At best, we're looking at a pretty low success rate. I disagree. Listing off the last lot of major western interventions: * **ISIS (Iraq + Syria)** - In progress * **Mali** - Successful * **Libya** - Successful * **Somalia** - Ongoing, but UN managed it humanitarian goals * **Iraq** - Disastrous * **Afghanistan** - Good? Bad? Ask again in 10 years * **Sierra Leone** - Good * **Kosovo** - Good * **Haiti** - Good * **Gulf war (Iraq/Kuwait)** - Good Please add more to that list if you can think of them, but that seems a pretty good success rate. > The framework you listed doesn't account for many factors that are impossible to know ahead of time. I tried to mention above that you can't do a trial to see what will be best in every option. I fully agree that vast amounts of uncertainty exist. This is the real world. A judgement must be made at some level about how much certain death you're willing to allow vs how many possible deaths you think you are saving. The rest of your argument seems concerned with regime change as justification in itself for intervention. This wasn't the case in any of the examples listed above. Gaddafi was a monster to his people for decades, but it took the tanks rolling out to prompt the west to act. If all the west wanted was regime change they could have done it much earlier and much more heavy handed. I suspect Iraq *was* actually an instance of regime change, and we saw the consequences. Libya also had a power vacuum, but that is inevitable when a dictator with absolute control over a country is toppled. I certainly don't agree that it is anti-democratic to topple a dictator in order for a chance for democracy to start up. And yes, I am not proposing that intervention is an option in Syria, definitely not at the moment. You've correctly identified some of the negatives of intervening which is why the West is correct in steering clear at present. > It's impossible to account for all the implications of intervening, so it's best used as little as possible. You hear this in medicine a lot of the time as well. But it's equivalent to "This patient has bowel cancer. There's a new drug which may push it into remission, or it may actually make her outcomes worse. Seeing as we don't know everything about the drug, let's not touch it." You're right, as we cannot predict the entire course of history then you cannot predict every possible outcome. But this should act as a caution, not a contra-indication. If you can predict enough consequences either way, and if the magnitude of not intervening is severe enough, then intervention should be employed.### Assistant: Well to start, I'm surprised you list Libya as "successful." Libya is a hellhole. The UK Parliament recently [released a report](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11903.htm?utm_source=119&utm_medium=sumbullet&utm_campaign=modulereports) outlining the catastrophic failure of Western intervention in Libya, and mentioned how it was based on faulty intelligence, and started with no real plan for a post-Qaddafi state. Also, I think your list should include * **Korea** - Stalemate. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship, but South Korea is great. * **Iran** - [Overthrow of the democratically elected government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat), which led to the Iranian Revolution. Our relations with Iran have never been good since then. We eventually supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and gave him weapons. * **Vietnam** - Disastrous failure * **Chile** - Pinochet rose to power and had a brutal dictatorship. (Long-term, Chile wound up with a strong economy, but at a high cost that could possibly have been avoided.) These are just a few off the top of my head. These interventions are always bloody and expensive and have unforeseeable consequences. Regarding your medical analogy, I don't think it applies here. To start, medical treatments have a clear set of objectives whereas military operations do not. This is like removing a tumor but not closing the wound. Medical treatments also have a predictable set of good/bad consequences that can be weighed against each other. Military operations have no predictable consequences, and can wind up hurting 'the doctor' (aka, the US). Most importantly, medical ethics are clearly defined, whereas the morality of international warfare is not. It is messy and complicated and dangerous. Our readiness to intervene has hurt us and will continue to hurt us in the future.### Human: I would equally condemn those MPs of either following the myopic view laid out in the post above, or tapping into it for political gain. Libya is a hellhole. But we haven't seen a Sarajevo or an Aleppo in Libya yet. 4,000 people have died in Libya the last two years. By contrast 4,000 people died in Syria in September of this year alone. The west intervened at a time when tanks and artillery where baring down on the east of the country. These are not the weapons used to selectively kill militants. Hence, as crappy as Libya is at the moment, it could have easily been a whole lot worse. Moving onto your list of other interventions, we are entering the Cold War period. Judging the consequences of these interventions depends on your view of what life under communism is like and how true the Domino effect is. If you want to move into this realm, I would add **Nicaragua** as possibly one of the worst interventions ever made. The view that all Western intervention is bad is a relatively modern maxim, hence I've been focussing on more modern conflicts. During the cold war, the West did not have the geopolitical dominance it holds today. The more commonly held maxim at the time was to avoid communism at all costs. However, if the aim was to limit the spread of communism, and if the intervention achieved that, were they in some way successful? Oh how I wish all treatments had were entirely predictable ;) Unpredictable things happen all the time, medicine is fundamentally managing the art of the unpredictable. If the doctor promotes a treatment that results in unexpected harm, then the doctor will be reprimanded, sued, struck off etc: the doctor can be hurt trying to do the right thing. > medical ethics are clearly defined, whereas the morality of international warfare is not. Medical ethics are not as clearly defined as you might think. Multiple situations arise where ethics committees have to deliberate retrospectively on decisions made. As for warfare, the Geneva Convention and International Criminal Court do set out what is permissible in war and what is not. I agree, it is messy and complicated and dangerous. But I believe that being hurt a few times is worth saving the agony of thousands of others### Assistant: > During the cold war, the West did not have the geopolitical dominance it holds today. During the Cold War, we also did not act unilaterally. All of our actions took into account what the Russians would do in response. We don’t do that anymore, and it has severely impacted our relationship with Russia. We have been encroaching on their border and toppling their allies with no concern as to how they would view that. If they did it to us, we would be livid. Putin is terrible, but the last thing we need to do is give him a justification to take diplomatic or military actions against us. If any country has a legitimate fear of foreign invasion, it’s Russia. Putin was horrified when we helped topple Qaddafi, because it shows how willing we are to do that. We’re moving NATO towards Russian borders, we’re toppling his only allies in the region. Why wouldn’t he be upset? It’s not worth it to risk war with the second-largest nuclear power in the world. These are the stakes we’re dealing with. > Medical ethics are not as clearly defined as you might think. Multiple situations arise where ethics committees have to deliberate retrospectively on decisions made. My point is that as a physician, you have a legal and ethical responsibility to act in the best interest of your patient. While the correct action may be ambiguous, you are not allowed to act in your own self-interest. Our military interventions involve a complex web of competing moral, political, and sadly corporate influences. If a doctor is reprimanded or a patient attacks them, they will be punished or protected by laws. There is no international police which can reprimand the US if our actions are seen as immoral in retrospect. It’s also worth pointing out that you’re not allowed to treat a patient against their will. We were not asked to invade these countries, despite any good intentions we had. Suppose we nobly enter Syria and topple Assad, and allow our companies to control mining rights. Is that moral? Was the primary justification humanitarian? Is there any way to really tell? Suppose we kill a major terrorist figure in a drone strike, but we also kill 20 civilians. Was that moral? Do the families of those civilians have a legitimate case against us? There are too many moral questions and unknown consequences to accurately make a cost-benefit analysis the way you propose.

### Human: CMV: birth control should be covered by health insurance### Assistant: Free speech is the first amendment right? So how come the government doesn't fund people starting up their own newspaper articles? The problem here is that taxpayer money shouldn't really be going into healthcare as a whole. That's what health insurance companies are there for. > If our taxpayer money is not going towards birth control, than I think we then must pay for the healthcare of any child born from an accidental pregnancy, whose parents don't have the means to support that child. In all honesty is a completely one sided entitled argument. If you're having sex with someone else, it's your own choice. No ones holding a gun to your head and telling you that you need to have sexual intercourse with your significant other or some random person on the street. You need to face the possible consequences of your actions. It's not societies job to fund your baby now with taxpayer dollars because you made a mistake of using bad contraceptives or didn't use one to begin with. That's for me where the argument falls apart. You have to hold people accountable for their own actions. Getting the government to support "accidental" mothers removes the punishment for having sex and getting pregnant. > A person cannot afford birth control and therefore has unprotected sex. They end up with a child that they didn't necessarily want. They are still poor, and therefore unable to pay for health care for that child. Therefore, that child is being payed for by our taxpayer dollars. We must support that child for 18 years, instead of paying for pills, shots, or some rubber, all of which are significantly cheaper than a child. Won't the community paying for birth control allow more children to live quality lives, while we pay less? **You mean a person didn't bother going to the convenience store pick up a pack of condoms and used double just in case?** What a shock. To be fair I do agree there are circumstances in which women end up having to bear the burden such as rape. But these cases are not the norm. No. The child shouldn't be supported by tax payer dollars. Either the parent finds a way to nourish their child through hardships or send the child up for adoption. **There's a fucking reason why you go through a boat load hoops and boundaries to adopt a child** It's not everyone else's job to pay for that person's mistake. The reason why I believe this is the same reason why we punish and talk into our children when they do bad things. I'm not talking the physical type of punishment. If you don't like being punished, then don't make poor decisions. It's that simple. If you want to help someone else raise their child, go start a go-fund me page or a foundation. Get people who are willing to get on board to help out. Don't force people to do it using tax payer dollars. That's morally wrong and evil. > Now, I do believe that this could all be avoided simply by people having less sex, but IMO, we have not found an effective way to limit the amount of sex people are having. This is where we both agree. But honestly it's their choice. You can't force someone not to have sex because of the complications it might bring afterwards. You can teach people to use safer practices but at the end of the day, you can't fix stupid. -------------------------------------------- **I'm not super hardcore about this, but since this is a CMV I wanted to give you a conservative take on your post** You have to see that there are two sides to this story. If someone makes a mistake and the government pays for it through tax payer dollars, someone else is carrying the burden of paying for child support without any say in the matter. That's what really bothers me.### Human: > Free speech is the first amendment right? So how come the government doesn't fund people starting up their own newspaper articles? Well they kinda do. Public universities are government funded and often have a media branch. Also there is subsidized internet access which could allow low income authors access to an audience. Also there is PBS and other local broadcasting. >The problem here is that taxpayer money shouldn't really be going into healthcare as a whole. That's what health insurance companies are there for. Your position is that being healthy is not an individual right, it is a product that individuals can choose to consume? > Getting the government to support "accidental" mothers removes the punishment for having sex and getting pregnant. Why should getting pregnant be viewed as a punishment? Lack of access to education about effective birth control does a lot to increase unwanted pregnancy rates. >No. The child shouldn't be supported by tax payer dollars. Either the parent finds a way to nourish their child through hardships or send the child up for adoption. Who pays for adoption, foster care, etc? Eventually tax payer money gets involved because homelessness is a social issue as well as an individual one. >There's a fucking reason why you go through a boat load hoops and boundaries to adopt a child And a lot of them are government funded hoops and boundaries, aka tax payer dollars at work and in an more costly and less efficient manor. >If you want to help someone else raise their child, go start a go-fund me page or a foundation. A non-profit foundation which benefits from tax exemptions? >You can teach people to use safer practices but at the end of the day, you can't fix stupid. Yet the correlation between abstinence only education and unwanted pregnancy is quite strong... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/ So one might argue trying to "fix stupid" is the most cost effective approach. >If someone makes a mistake and the government pays for it through tax payer dollars, someone else is carrying the burden of paying for child support without any say in the matter. That's what really bothers me. That's what taxes are though. I may not drive on _every road_ or agree to _every sewer pipe_ but I still benefit from the system. It's really no different than insurance, the larger the pool of people to defer the costs, the lower the premiums/taxes or the more you can collect which means the more you can do with it.### Assistant: > Well they kinda do. Public universities are government funded and often have a media branch. Also there is subsidized internet access which could allow low income authors access to an audience. Also there is PBS and other local broadcasting. Yeh I can see this. The point really though was to make the argument of why the government subsidizes certain things but not others. > Your position is that being healthy is not an individual right, it is a product that individuals can choose to consume? Yep. It may sound cruel on my part, but if you want good healthcare you're going to have to pay for it. In a perfect Utopian world, would free healthcare be beneficial? Of course. Sadly thought the money required to support the entire population I'd say below the middle-class would be too great without having to seriously sacrifice on other government services. There's a reason health insurance exists. Things like open heart surgery, a broken arm happen once in a blue moon for your average family so where I see most of the cost comes from is regular check-ups to the doctor that drives up costs. > Why should getting pregnant be viewed as a punishment? Lack of access to education about effective birth control does a lot to increase unwanted pregnancy rates. By punishment I only meant those people who have/had sex and when the pregnancy test comes up positive are in shock because they didn't prepare for such an outcome. Wait so many people lack the common knowledge that condoms help prevent pregnancy and/or pills? I have too much respect for people to believe this. > Who pays for adoption, foster care, etc? Eventually tax payer money gets involved because homelessness is a social issue as well as an individual one. The government in all honesty needs to pull out of this too for the exact same reason I mentioned in my original post. **If you make poor decisions in your life and you don't prepare for the possible negative implications, the it's on you. Not the rest of society.** If you can find a foundation or person who's willing to help you out then good on them. But we shouldn't be putting tax payer dollars into this. This might be a social issue, but giving people something to fall back on removes the punishment of poor decisions and essentially conditions them to believe that "failing is ok". You wasted your money on drugs and now you're homeless? Tough luck. Welcome to the real world. These streets are cold, and living a few years out in the streets might teach you not to make poor decisions and make better ones. It's on you whether or not you pull yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself. > And a lot of them are government funded hoops and boundaries, aka tax payer dollars at work and in an more costly and less efficient manor. Again my solution would be that the government needs to pull out of this. Instead, move it into publicly funded organizations/groups. If people want to help the less fortunate, they're more than welcome to donate but they shouldn't be forced through tax payer dollars. > A non-profit foundation which benefits from tax exemptions? Yeh in my world I wouldn't do this. Or at the very least lower the tax exemptions significantly. The reason why non-profit foundations are funded generously is because of the tax exemptions. Not necessarily from the goodness of people's hearts. There's a conflict of interest here. > That's what taxes are though. I may not drive on every road or agree to every sewer pipe but I still benefit from the system. It's really no different than insurance, the larger the pool of people to defer the costs, the lower the premiums/taxes or the more you can collect which means the more you can do with it. And that's literally how entitlement works. Just because I'm poor, the rest of the people who can afford to pay much higher taxes should do so because it benefits me. **I'm living and breathing therefore I'm entitled to XYZ. What about no you aren't?** Making other people suffer monetary wise through forced donations(a.k.a using tax payer dollars), higher taxes just because some people have it worse than others is literally a piss poor argument. You know why a many people advocate the rich paying higher taxes? Because somehow they feel that the less fortunate are more deserving of it. **Who in the world told your it's right to take someone else's money and give it to someone else because they are more deserving or could make more use for it? Tell me where the morality of this is.** People who make a lot of money deserve their money. If they committed a crime to earn that money then I'll stand by with you and fight them. No ones saying that foster kids should just be left to die. All I'm making the argument for is that two wrongs don't make a right. Someone making a poor decision and then making someone else foot the bill for their poor decision as a safety guard doesn't make sense to me. There's the obvious argument of national security and personal security in that a countries citizens should be protected from external danger or harm from other people. But that being said, general health doesn't fall under this. **If you decide to jump off a bridge and break your ankle. Who's fault is that? The ground for breaking your ankle? Who's going to pay for the treatment if you can't afford it?** *Oh right tax payer dollars right because its for the selfish benefit if yourself right?* This to me is where I get mind blown. Again, in a Utopian society the government subsidizing everything is something we could just dream about. But sadly we're in reality. --- TBH I see and understand the points you're trying to make. I really do. But even so, I don't agree with all of them.### Human: >Wait so many people lack the common knowledge that condoms help prevent pregnancy and/or pills? I have too much respect for people to believe this. Lol how is something _not being taught_ all of a sudden "common knowledge?" >The government in all honesty needs to pull out of this too for the exact same reason I mentioned in my original post. **If you make poor decisions in your life and you don't prepare for the possible negative implications, the it's on you. Not the rest of society.** By this logic, we shouldn't even have a highway system. Just because _some people_ choose to drive I gotta pay taxes for the road they drive on? I mean I have to suffer through your car exhaust just because it gets you to work faster? The crimes against my freedoms! Quite the myopic view point considering how many services I benifit from by others having access to roads, >If you can find a foundation or person who's willing to help you out then good on them. Can't that be one of the functions of a first world society? >But we shouldn't be putting tax payer dollars into this. Really? If all of health was privatized, most of the drugs we have today wouldn't exist due to the very high start up cost of R&D. I understand your position though, in your eyes a society isn't socially responsible. >This might be a social issue, but giving people something to fall back on removes the punishment of poor decisions and essentially conditions them to believe that "failing is ok". So you are logically in favor of lots more money and expanded free education then right? These people often lack the education to understand what it means to make a poor decision given their economic opportunities. We have a concept called bankruptcy, it in fact means failing is ok. Also this doesn't hold true for most aspects of life. Failing is ok, so long as that failure is useful. >You wasted your money on drugs and now you're homeless? Tough luck. Welcome to the real world. So you think everyone who is homeless is because of drugs? No room for treating addiction medically either I suppose? >These streets are cold, and living a few years out in the streets might teach you not to make poor decisions and make better ones. Or it could drive them insane and lead to a violent confrontation later in life resulting in a worse economic impact compared to that individual being supported in a time of need. >Again my solution would be that the government needs to pull out of this. Instead, move it into publicly funded organizations/groups. This is still tax dollars if it's public funding. Again I shouldn't be forced to pay for roads I don't drive on but the economic benefits to having those roads vastly outweighs what I pay in taxes. >Yeh in my world I wouldn't do this We don't live there though, so it's nothing more than a nice idea. >Or at the very least lower the tax exemptions significantly. The reason why non-profit foundations are funded generously is because of the tax exemptions. Not necessarily from the goodness of people's hearts. There's a conflict of interest here. That's how taxes work though... Taxes are paying for societal benefits. To independently invest your own money above and beyond what society has agreed as the minimum has garnered respect from others to the point we're we are granting tax reprieves. Rewarding the socially positive companies via financial incentives is a common practice in just about any government. >And that's literally how entitlement works. Just because I'm poor, the rest of the people who can afford to pay much higher taxes should do so because it benefits me. No, that's not entitlements that's taxes. Don't conflate the two and pretend they are the same. If you disagree with this idea, you disagree with a progressive tax bracket system. >**I'm living and breathing therefore I'm entitled to XYZ. What about no you aren't?** So just going to ignore our constitution and bill of rights I suppose? >Making other people suffer monetary wise through forced donations(a.k.a using tax payer dollars), higher taxes just because some people have it worse than others is literally a piss poor argument. As is saying I shouldn't pay more taxes because I can afford to but just don't feel like contributing that much. The rules that helped you get that rich also help others. >You know why a many people advocate the rich paying higher taxes? Because somehow they feel that the less fortunate are more deserving of it. What? You are the first person I have spoken to who tried to make that argument. More often than not it's along the lines of "well it only costs M amount of money for the average person to live, you have X*M amount of money, so it seems like you have more than you need. Since resources are still finite, and the benfiit of sharing are many, it would be best if those with excess could share the excess with those who lack a means to achieve the same level of success. " I know not the simple one liner libtard idea you used to shouting down but it's a complex topic with nuanced positions. >**Who in the world told your it's right to take someone else's money and give it to someone else because they are more deserving or could make more use for it? Tell me where the morality of this is.** Again, it's not about who deserves what, I certainly didn't say that. It's about ability and access, because we don't know where the next Elon musk, Marie Currie, or George Washington Carver is going to come from and we would all benifit from their success.### Assistant: > By this logic, we shouldn't even have a highway system. Just because some people choose to drive I gotta pay taxes for the road they drive on? I mean I have to suffer through your car exhaust just because it gets you to work faster? The crimes against my freedoms! > Quite the myopic view point considering how many services I benifit from by others having access to roads, And here is where you under-cut a lot of your argument. We pay for the roads because everyone actively benefits. Even if you don't drive, the roads allow companies to deliver the groceries you buy, allows USPS and other companies to deliver packages, allows the trash removal service access to your home, and allows the police to patrol and safeguard your neighborhood. It is a collective net benefit based in a neutral starting position. It's not an action taken to repair a mistake. There's no situation where you can point to someone and say, "This person made a poor life decision and now we must pave six miles of road to mitigate the damage to society." Comparatively healthcare costs (insurance or direct payment for medical care), childcare costs, or even preventative costs regardless of the benefit start from a position of, "This person made negative life choices and now we must share the burden of the cost to fix it." "This person actively chooses to avoid exercise and lives on a diet of sugar and red meat. We must all share the cost of the effect this has had on their health." "This person actively ignored 40 years of medical science and warnings older than they are, choosing to smoke a pack of cigarettes each day. We must all share the cost." And more to the original post: "This person chose to have unprotected sex. We must all share the burden of their continued choices." Taxes for the roads elevate everyone. True, some more than others. Taxes specifically designed to mitigate the damage to individuals or society because of the decisions of a few don't.### Human: >We pay for the roads because everyone actively benefits. Same is true for birth control. >Even if you don't drive, the roads allow companies to deliver the groceries you buy, allows USPS and other companies to deliver packages, allows the trash removal service access to your home, and allows the police to patrol and safeguard your neighborhood. It is a collective net benefit based in a neutral starting position Similar to birth control. A woman or couple not burdened by a child has the potential to achieve greater economic status increase, which tends to be shared by many. >It's not an action taken to repair a mistake. Birth control is preventative, so arguably it isn't either. Technically abortion would be the parallel. >There's no situation where you can point to someone and say, "This person made a poor life decision and now we must pave six miles of road to mitigate the damage to society." I don't know what you are trying to prove with this statement, it's not what I am saying. >Comparatively healthcare costs (insurance or direct payment for medical care), childcare costs, or even preventative costs regardless of the benefit start from a position of, "This person made negative life choices and now we must share the burden of the cost to fix it." False. People get sick due to genetics or environmental factors. People get hit by cars or shot sitting in their own home. Or have allergic reactions due to a miscommunication with wait staff. Mistakes and accidents outside of our responsibility happen all the time. Preventative care costs less than reactionary care in both time and money which reduces the load on the health care system. >"This person actively chooses to avoid exercise and lives on a diet of sugar and red meat. We must all share the cost of the effect this has had on their health." If you drive and I don't, we both share the cost of you driving, pollution, wear to the roads, traffic, etc. That's simply the nature of many things. >"This person actively ignored 40 years of medical science and warnings older than they are, choosing to smoke a pack of cigarettes each day. We must all share the cost." Yes, because through collective bargaining power, the cost of that one person is less than if they negotiate as an individual. So the net benefits is that everything is cheaper for everyone that joins together. That's how insurance works... >And more to the original post: "This person chose to have unprotected sex. We must all share the burden of their continued choices." The cost of that unwanted child being put up in government housing is way way way more than preventative birth control. Not to mention that child's health Care is covered by the government even if the mother is not. Which is also way more expensive. So as a conservative economic argument, it's cheaper to invest in education and preventative health care like birth control. >Taxes for the roads elevate everyone. True, some more than others. Taxes specifically designed to mitigate the damage to individuals or society because of the decisions of a few don't. That's not how this works, people don't pay a "birth control tax" it's included with other sane preventative health care.### Assistant: > If you drive and I don't, we both share the cost of you driving, pollution, wear to the roads, traffic, etc. Pollution costs are woven into the cost of gasoline, vehicle registration & taxes, and other items needed to maintain the vehicle (that I pay, and you don't). And environmental regulations require that I keep output of negative inside of a limit to those costs (SMOG checks, for example) or I don't get to use the car. Again, unless you are 100% off the grid (growing your own crops, defending your own land, etc) you benefit from the roads and can help pay for wear and tear on the roads and the systems used to make sure you can travel safely on foot throughout your local city (sidewalks, crossing lights). > People get sick due to genetics or environmental factors. You'd need to be specific in order to provide an itemized response. > People get hit by cars ... To my understanding, every state in the United States requires some form of vehicular insurance or proof that you can pay for damages should you be in an accident and that must included paying for the health costs incurred by whom you injure. > ... shot sitting in their own home. I mean, are you talking about a bullet falling from the sky out of nowhere or are you talking about during a home invasion? Both have legal remedies. > ... because through collective bargaining power, the cost of that one person is less than if they negotiate as an individual. So the net benefits is that everything is cheaper for everyone that joins together. That's how insurance works... You know what else is cheaper? Not smoking a gd pack of cigarettes a day. If we're talking about absolute reduction of cost, self control's right up there. > The cost of that unwanted child being put up in government housing is way way way more than preventative birth control. Not to mention that child's health Care is covered by the government even if the mother is not. Which is also way more expensive. Which misses the point entirely.### Human: >Again, unless you are 100% off the grid (growing your own crops, defending your own land, etc) you benefit from the roads and can help pay for wear and tear on the roads and the systems used to make sure you can travel safely on foot throughout your local city (sidewalks, crossing lights). That's my point. It's a shared resource that's better because of sharing. Not sure what you are arguing against? >You'd need to be specific in order to provide an itemized response. No, it's tagentent to the original topic. >To my understanding, every state in the United States requires some form of vehicular insurance or proof that you can pay for damages should you be in an accident and that must included paying for the health costs incurred by whom you injure. Assuming the amount of of damage is covered. There are caps. You simply can't account for all accidental damages. >I mean, are you talking about a bullet falling from the sky out of nowhere or are you talking about during a home invasion? Both have legal remedies. Random violence, accidental discharge. There are more than the two possibilities and legal discourse that takes years to play out (assuming the shooter is caught) isn't going to cover immediate medical costs. You can't assume that you will never incure medical costs that are the results of random acts of violence. >You know what else is cheaper? Not smoking a gd pack of cigarettes a day. If we're talking about absolute reduction of cost, self control's right up there. This is where you have to accept that humans are not computers, we don't just flip a 1 to a 0 and now people don't crave things that have been marketed and chemically crafted to keep you smoking. Marketing and advertising work. Humans have a finite amount of self control and not everyone receives enough education about how to manage their decisions. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower.aspx >Which misses the point entirely. In what way?### Assistant: > Not sure what you are arguing against? I'm arguing against having to pay for other people's life choices. This tangent was started by you using a highway-is-the-same-as-healthcare analogy to which I objected. The life choices of everyone I'm sharing a massive healthcare plan with increases the cost I have to pay for my healthcare. Despite your assertions, the roads are not the same. Costs of the direct impact of my usage of the roads are integrated into taxes having to do with the actual usage of vehicles on the road. YOU, as a non-driver, don't have to pay for MY car's registration taxes and fees, gas, or maintenance. MY choices do not increase YOUR shared cost in maintaining the roads because the costs of MY choices are paid through other means. What we pay is proportional to our usage and benefit. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, the health insurance company calculates the cost of your healthcare needs and adds it to the pile of costs shared by everyone. YOUR life choices increase MY costs. Sure, you have to pay the fee for the doctor's visit and the medication, but you're not buying me the car in the roads analogy either.### Human: >I'm arguing against having to pay for other people's life choices. This tangent was started by you using a highway-is-the-same-as-healthcare analogy to which I objected. I'm arguing against having to pay for other people's life choices. This tangent was started by you using a highway-is-the-same-as-healthcare analogy to which I objected. You objection makes my point. The highways system is a system of shared costs that is better because the costs are distributed among everyone, not just the people who actually drive. If the highways system was implemented the way you want health care (and subsequently birth-control), then you wouldn't have access to things you didn't directly pay for and wouldn't be allowed to benefit from the shared system either. >The life choices of everyone I'm sharing a massive healthcare plan with increases the cost I have to pay for my healthcare. Actually, the more people in that plan, the less the individual choices matter at all. This is basic stuff here. That's exactly how insurance and taxes work, broaden the base and potentially lower the rates or increase the services. >Despite your assertions, the roads are not the same. I wouldn't say they are the same, I would say they provide a useful analogy but it's still an analogy which is imperfect. >Costs of the direct impact of my usage of the roads are integrated into taxes having to do with the actual usage of vehicles on the road. YOU, as a non-driver, don't have to pay for MY car's registration taxes and fees, gas, or maintenance. MY choices do not increase YOUR shared cost in maintaining the roads because the costs of MY choices are paid through other means. What we pay is proportional to our usage and benefit. You are taking a very myopic position on what "costs" are actually associated in driving by ignoring a lot of stuff. First of, vehicles are not taxed "per mile" like in other places, so to claim they pay for the damage they cause with out sources is silly. While I don't have to pay for you to operate your car, I do pay for the roads you operate it on, the air quality, the government monitors and inspectors, the people there to enforce taxes, etc. It's not like a car pops into existence from nothing. It takes a lot of government provided infrastructure to even build it let alone drive it. All that infrastructure would be _more expensive_ and _lower quality_ if it wasn't paid for by everyone regardless of the % used. >If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, the health insurance company calculates the cost of your healthcare needs and adds it to the pile of costs shared by everyone. YOUR life choices increase MY costs. lol yes, in the most basic sense. Again this is myopic to the point of silliness. This is exactly how insurance works. Because you and I are now together, your cat scan due to the car accident you got in during that random unpredictable rain storm costs YOU LESS. Because we all paid for part of it. Since it _saves you more_ than it _costs me_ (and everyone) to help differ the costs, insurance (and for that matter taxes) work. If it did not work that way mathematically, insurance markets simply would not exist. >Sure, you have to pay the fee for the doctor's visit and the medication, but you're not buying me the car in the roads analogy either. No I am just paying for the inspectors who make sure your car is safe, for the roads that your car drives on, for the water/air cleaning that is needed from the pollution the car releases. None of it the result of _me driving your car_ but costs I must pay for the benefits of society at large. If you don't want to "pay for other people" you must detach from the system entirely, go live in the woods and be 100% self sufficient. Anything short of that is saying you want to be selective about what stuff you pay for when it comes to participating in a society, and that the stuff you select is _more right_ than the stuff that other select.### Assistant: > You objection makes my point. The highways system is a system of shared costs that is better because the costs are distributed among everyone, not just the people who actually drive. But as I explained, that's not how roads work. You can't just ignore everything else I say, call me myopic, and declare that I'm agreeing with you or serving your point. And to that end I'm done. I'm just spending this entire interaction re-explaining my point in more granular detail. Go to google and look up the laws dictating the fees on the sale and maintenance of a vehicle, including registration fees, and what those fees are to be used for in your local jurisdiction. I just verified the information is readily available from multiple governmental sources and explained in great detail: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+are+vehicle+registration+fees+calculated+and+used I hope you have a better day.### Human: >But as I explained, that's not how roads work. You are in fact skipping a lot of how roads work, are paid ford, are utilized, interconnected, and how people end up benefiting from (or in the case of factory workers in cities, are hurt by) them. How do I know? I work in transpiration safety research, we know a lot about roads, vehicles an related topics. We study roads, cars etc. I have a p good idea about how the bulk of our highway system operates, and we work closely with DOT. If you want to say "that's not how roads work" then explain what about I am saying is wrong, simply claiming it's all wrong and you are right isn't useful or accurate. >You can't just ignore everything else I say, call me myopic, and declare that I'm agreeing with you or serving your point. No, I specifically listed things you didn't seem to mention in your "shared cost model of roads," pointed out how including those things does make my point for me, and that you are intentionally ignoring the wider context (which is being myopic). The highway system affects everyone, not just the people who use it directly. Similar to how health care affects everyone, not just the people who use the services directly. The services if they were to lack any cost sharing whatsoever would be worse, which is why I used the analogy. They are better _because of cost sharing_ and _I don't have to drive or use the same roads as use, but we both benefit_ >. I'm just spending this entire interaction re-explaining my point in more granular detail. That's what you have to do when your point is ill defined and not well articulated. Once you can do that, you often don't repeat the same mistakes in your argument. >Go to google and look up the laws dictating the fees on the sale and maintenance of a vehicle, including registration fees, and what those fees are to be used for in your local jurisdiction. https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending/ Those fees are not the only fees used to pay for vehicle infrastructure, which is why your point isn't strong. If everything needed for private car infrastructure was covered from local/sate fees/taxes, that would only cover local roads. Yet we have interstate highways, private roads built with public funds, and lots and lots of unincorporated areas. So it's a lovely idea, but not reality. >http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+are+vehicle+registration+fees+calculated+and+used lol I just googled "what taxes are used to pay for roads" and found the link above, shredding your argument. So not sure why you think linking me to a likely individualized search result (because that is in fact how Google works) is better than to the exact evidence you wish to use but it's not useful for the point of a conversation. Because now I have to go back to you and check if the sources and results are the same for both of us, so we can compare individual sources. That said, here are some more articles explaining how road costs are shared by those who also do not drive but clearly still benefit in other ways from the transportation infrastructure that is the highway system. * http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads * http://freefrombroke.com/what-do-your-property-taxes-pay-for/ * https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/10/economist-explains-4 >I hope you have a better day. Thanks! Hopefully you decide to read the reply and not just write it off as disagreement because I included links to sources just for you!

### Human: I think the majority of people who claim to be asexual are so because of emotional/mental health issues and not because they are inherently asexual CMV### Assistant: I don't know how to convince you that asexuality is real (there are [more than a few](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#References) psych and medical journals that discuss the prevalence and offer varying degrees of support for asexuality having status as an orientation, and you may educate yourself further by listening to experts). But I'd like to address your last point - that hardships faced by other minorities are more significant. This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. Just because one group is less privileged than another does not mean we should ignore minor cases of injustice. Social justice is not a competition to see which group of citizens is the most disadvantaged. We should be working to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, and to do this there should be groups to demand rights for all minorities. Reform of white privilege (for example) has been going on for a long time now and has many institutionalized forms of affirmative action. Not saying that racism is over, cause it sure isn't, but it's coming around. The same is true of homosexuality. There are many other disadvantaged groups whose movements are just barely starting to gain traction and recognition, and they deserve that recognition. It's not as if the spotlight has to be on *one* particular group. Again, don't look at social justice as a "who is the most underprivileged" contest. It is very much possible to work towards universal social equality and to do that we should recognize all disadvantaged groups.### Human: I actually expected this response and meant to address it in the post. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to be annoyed and express displeasure when people try and tell them they should get married, I'm only saying it is insensitive to compare this to being black or gay in the US, because it is not institutionalized discrimination and is no worse than the flack someone would face for going even slightly against the grain (being an art major, liking a "nerdy" subject, being a vegetarian, what have you). There are no laws or educational practices supporting the idea that everyone needs to get married or they will be sad forever. As far as your first point, I guess what I really want to see is statistics on how many people who claim to be asexual at a young age continue to feel that way their whole lives. I definitely am not claiming that there is no such thing as an asexual, I absolutely know there are people who are genuinely asexual, I just get frustrated when people deny that there could be underlying emotional causes in many cases. I know three people who at a certain point in their lives thought they were asexual. Of the three, one was on depression meds and when he was happier/off drugs he had a higher libido, and the other two had huge hangups about personal appearance which they discovered was keeping them from enjoying sex. One of these people is basically a sex fiend now that they are more confident. So I think mainly because of my experience, I have a hard time believing the teenagers/young adults who seem to be pigeonholing themselves before exploring other options. But among all this I also recognize how much of a hypocrite I am since obviously I know I'm gay and I was young when I knew it, so who am I to say these people don't. It is also might be important to note that I am mostly discussing teenagers/young adults who are still physically/emotionally developing.### Assistant: I think there are more institutionalized forms of anti-asexual discrimination than you realise. For someone who truly has no desire to be romantically or sexually involved with others, there is a *ton* of material in popular media that implies that they are inferior. In high school and young adulthood, romance is glorified beyond belief and the absence of it is likewise put down as failure. It's understandable that you've formed your current view if you've seen people go from misidentifying themselves as asexual to coming to grips with other issues that were limiting their sexuality. I don't have any personal anecdotes to share with you to counter that. Maybe someone else does. You're right in thinking that sometimes people are a little quick to declare themselves a certain orientation, I think the dispute here - and the aspect of your view that most needs changing - is the term "majority". Consider how insensitive that would be to people who have hormone imbalances. It implies that you think it's likely they're just "faking" it, or that they're just confused about what they really want in a relationship.### Human: The media is still not exactly what I would consider institutionalized, but I do now see how there is more discrimination than I thought, so I'll admit that I am being unfair in that sense. If I think about it, "heteronormativity" or whatever the buzzword is, affects asexuals a lot too, and I didn't think about that. So ∆ for that. Probably majority is wrong as well, I just wish I had some tangible data to go off of, but were usually not that lucky on most CMV topics. I guess my view isn't totally changed but I would say it is modified in some aspects based on what you've said.### Assistant: > The media is still not exactly what I would consider institutionalized Ah, well that's just a vocabulary issue. Certainly, it's not as if there are official laws that discriminate against asexuals, but it's very challenging for anything that discriminates in an official capacity to stand in court these days. Still waiting on that DOMA ruling... Anyways, understand that there is both negative discrimination and positive reinforcement of other lifestyles - heteronormativity is the word indeed. > I guess my view isn't totally changed but I would say it is modified in some aspects Perfect! I don't want to turn you around completely on this, because there are some instances where people are quick to give themselves or others a label, only to repeal it after an underlying cause is addressed. I only wish for you to be more sensitive to people who may be dealing with very real medical and psychological... afflictions.

### Human: CMV: Recent Film Critics Judge Films Moreso By Ideology Than Quality### Assistant: There are so many film critics now-a-days that it is silly to make such broad generalisations### Human: No it's not, you can respond by consensus. Did you even read the thread?### Assistant: Since there are so many film critics it is a bit of a stretch to think that everyone thinks of the merits of a movie all the same way.### Human: Do you acknowledge that there are any trends?### Assistant: I want to respond to this point specifically, because I'd like to highlight that there being trends and the trends expressed in this one list are not the same point. I think it would be just as easy to survey a group of youtube movie reviewers or fanboy bloggers and get a top 250 list that looks wildly different. While critics are forged by their histories and studies and experiences, they are absolutely also forged by their audiences. Critics like [moviebob](http://moviebob.blogspot.com/), [Chris Stuckmann](https://www.youtube.com/user/ChrisStuckmann) and [Jeremy Jahns](https://www.youtube.com/user/JeremyJahns) certainly focus on popular culture over high culture, and they are rewarded for that focus by the audience they've gotten. On the flip side, the film critic of the New Yorker, [Anthony Lane](http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/anthony-lane) has sensibilities formed and forged by writing for the New Yorker and the audience they cultivate. There's actually a huge cottage industry towards critics looking meaningfully at popular culture, from [Wisecrack](https://www.youtube.com/user/thugnotes) explaining the philosophies of blockbusters like Batman V Superman to [Movies with Mikey](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdGl5mi0XeW2iK2sVp2ni_VDRKrmfF_-Z) breaking down why movies firmly rooted in popular culture are better than they are remembered to be. If we were to chart the trends of these youtube reviewers, we would see different trends than the S&S poll you've mentioned. In this way, if your argument is the BFI specifically behaves this way, I definitely agree. But placing the trends that the BFI list express as representative of all critics everywhere, I think, would be misleading.### Human: I'm talking about the mainstream critical establishment. Of the youtubers you mentioned I've only been exposed to Stuckmann, who seems to be to be blatantly giving everything a good grade to acquire clicks and subscribers. Very few youtubers seem to have any real knowledge of film, and the ones that do (Such as Adam Johnston) conform pretty closely with the traditional establishment.### Assistant: If that's the case, then your argument of C3 is a result of faulty presumptions, not a reflection of the world around us. The gulf that you're identifying between critics and audiences isn't a reflection of critics' sensibilities, it's a reflection of your own sampling bias. Chris Stuckmann might not have "any real knowledge of film," but neither do most general audiences. Therefore, when you exclude him from "the mainstream critical establishment" you're excluding critics who have the sensibilities of the general audience and presumably reflect that in their criticism. He has 600,000 subscribers, by the way, hell, Jeremy Jahns has 1.2 million. And if all that's the case, then the gulf you're describing in C3 is just a result of critics having "real knowledge of film" and general audiences not, which kind of runs contrary to everything else in C1, C2, and C3. (This, by the way, is something of an addendum u/DHCKris and his first post, which explains the gulf as a have/have not relationship between those with the film knowledge to read and gen audiences that don't.) Not that I agree, by the way, that most of these youtubers don't have any real knowledge of film, but given that as a premise, here's why your argument is wrong.### Human: This can't demonstrate that my argument is wrong, because you're referencing people that I wasn't referencing. We're not even talking about the same thing. Youtubers in general pander for views. The two most common types of youtube channels are shitting on crap movies, and heaping praise upon everything. Stuckman seems to be the second (Although I am not an expert, I've only seen five or so of his videos). I cannot even take what most youtubers have in good faith, because my entire premise is that Stuckman is not presenting things as he actually feels, and that I suspect he knows more than he lets on. But the persona he presents is not someone who seems particularly film literate, or at the very least not very discerning. Even if you could find an army of youtubers whose tastes all converge, and are different than the S&S250, all you've done is provide evidence for my case- that the S&S250 and mainsteam critical establishment is out of touch, and that there are serious flaws and biases in their methods of compiling lists and opinions.### Assistant: I'm referencing people you weren't referencing because you're specifically excluding them for your list of "mainstream critical establishment." I'm bringing them to your attention, because they're a class of critic whose tastes definitely reflect the tastes of the general audience and if you were to include them in your list, you'd see the gulf between audiences and critics shrink, and the driving ideologies behind the movies change. Additionally, most film audiences aren't particularly film literate. This means that reviewers like Jeremy Jahns and Stuckmann, if we are going to take your premise that they aren't film literate, are more closely reflecting the sensibilities of the also-illiterate general audiences. This is why excluding them from your sample of critics creates the gulf. And if you're going to exclude these youtubers from "mainstream critical establishment," widening the gulf between critics and audiences, you're making the dividing line that film literacy, not the critics' specific ideology and rejection of some kind of objective quality to films. I'm not arguing that C3 is wrong because there is no gulf, by your premise. I'm arguing that C3 is wrong because the reason for the gulf isn't what you stated it is: a bias towards a specific ideology. It's really just that the BFI is film-literate and general audiences aren't. I also think there are plenty of other pieces to this. General audiences are chiefly looking for entertainment, whereas critics and scholars are looking for something profound and moving, for instance. I also think that part of this is that *filmmakers* think the only way they can make quality films is by focusing on this ideology, in which case the buck stops with them, and the critics are just reviewing the material they've been offered. But the main point here, is your sampling bias with the mainstream critical establishment undermining C3.### Human: >I'm not arguing that C3 is wrong because there is no gulf, by your premise. I'm arguing that C3 is wrong because the reason for the gulf isn't what you stated it is: a bias towards a specific ideology. It's really just that the BFI is film-literate and general audiences aren't. Yes but you're going in a ludicrous direction to prove this point. If you want to disprove C3, then you need to analyze the set of educated film people and see whether or not their tastes align with the S&S250, and if not whether or not my argument is a sound explanation for the discord. This other discussion about youtubers and film illiterate masses is a straw man. I'm not interested in people who know nothing about film, it's not relevant. When I say "general audiences" what I am referring to are audiences which are educated to some degree. I'm talking about people who want to take film more seriously, but don't have extensive exposure to it. I don't think the list helps them. What you seem to be talking about are 12-18 year olds who watch films so can kill time, that's a different conversation altogether.### Assistant: It's not a strawman, you used the term "general audiences" with no other qualifiers, besides they don't like movies on the top 250 and they like movies by Spielberg and Kubrick. Clearly, you meant "budding cinephiles" I guess, when I read, you know, everyone that goes to watch movies. That sounds a lot like shifting the goalposts to me, but if that's where you want to take it, have at it.

### Human: I don't think people should have the right to refuse donating their organs once they die. CMV### Assistant: Aside from the religious implications, it also comes down to basic ownership/sovereignty rights. Some people may simply not want to allow their body to be used in such a way. If we take away the freedom to control ones own body, even after death, it would open a floodgate of moral and legal issues. For the record, I am an organ donor.### Human: ∆ My view has officially been persuaded to a firm belief that we maintain control over our organs even after death as they are part of our ownership. I hold that the current standard of ownership does not dissolving after death. This user helped me see that this standard extends to the ownership of our organs. He illustrated this in this as well as other comments.### Assistant: Thanks! I'm glad I could help you see yourself in a new way! Having said all I've had to say in the thread, I would still very much encourage you to become an organ donor (if you are not one already). It's an extremely important and generous choice, but a choice nonetheless.### Human: Oh I am. And if I wasn't this thread would have convinced me otherwise.### Assistant: Awesome! I'm really glad to hear that.

### Human: CMV: I'm Pro-bullying. Or at least ANTI-anti bullying campaigns I've seen. Long Text Inside.### Assistant: > Bullying is part of the acceptance process . The new kid comes in, kids usually poke fun of him before anything else. Their response tells far more than what they children are saying. Getting angry is usually the worst thing you can do in this situation. That's not what bullying is. You're describing what virtually every single new kid has to go through when they arrive at a new school or whatever. Bullying is continued, extreme, psychologically and/or physically painful abuse. So yeah, if what's happening in schools is bullies not being identified correctly, then yes, there is a problem and I'd be against the system too. But bullying itself is a problem and bullies need to be stopped. The abuse of another human being, especially one so young, is not something we should allow to continue.### Human: I agree. You are misinterpreting what bullying is. Firstly, bullying isn't something which stops and isn't something typically done for a particular reason. Simply teasing the new guy, be it at school, a club or later in life at work, is something which ends and as the OP said is almost part of an acceptance process - not bullying. Bullying is prolonged, potentially lasting years, and is repeated attacks by an individual - be it psychological or physical. The effects of this are always detrimental, no matter what someone might argue. I'm not going to go through them, because everyone is aware of the dangers of bullying. Years ago, here in the UK, there was a movement which pressed for bullying to become a criminal offence - as in you could be sentenced to prison (young offenders) for severe repetition of it. I am incredibly for this. As others have said, why is it acceptable for a sixteen-year-old to punch another his age in the face everyday for a year and have it classed as a bullying? If that was done in the street or the workplace, it'd be assault. Furthermore, I believe that bullying should constitute as murder. Driving someone to commit suicide, which although perhaps not incredibly common does happen because of bullying, should be equivalent to murder or manslaughter at the very least.### Assistant: > As others have said, why is it acceptable for a sixteen-year-old to punch another his age in the face everyday for a year and have it classed as a bullying? If that was done in the street or the workplace, it'd be assault. Well, here in the US, he could be charged for that. Whether he was charged for that would depend a lot on: 1) Whether the adults around him give a shit 2) How well off or influential his family is### Human: [Mainly point 2.]( http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/)### Assistant: I don't see what's bad about sending a kid to rehab instead of jail. If rehabilitation can help him be a better member of society, why would we pass up the opportunity in order to punish him? Additionally, the kid *was* charged and *was* convicted, and was sentenced to rehab and 10 years of probation. It's really not a good example for what you're arguing.### Human: I was mainly emphasizing the use of the term affluenza in this case since its not very commonly used today and how affluence could affect one's actions. Sorry if it wasn't clear.### Assistant: confession time: I am one of those 'affluenza types' yep, my parents arent rich- but ive never had a consequence i couldnt wiggle my way out of. a smart lawyer could make this case easilly

### Human: CMV: Time travel is impossible.### Assistant: Technically, we are all traveling through time. If you mean going forward into the future at a faster or slower speed, that has been proven by [Einstein's Theory of Relativity.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) For example, in the beginning of Planet of the Apes, he travels forward thousands of years because of the incredible speed of his spacecraft. But you don't need to go really really fast or experience really really intense gravity to experience this. This phenomenon is happening to all matter in the universe, and in fact, to an extremely small degree, we all travel through time at slightly, slightly different speeds. What you're really talking about is going **backwards in time.** That has neither been proven or disproven with any great evidence. [The best bet for going back in time is probably the creation of a wormhole.](http://www.livescience.com/39159-time-travel-with-wormhole.html) But here's an interesting thought: As soon as we develop the technology to travel back in time by creating a wormhole, we create the very 1st point in which time travel is possible. As soon as that Alpha point is created, presumably a large number of things from the future will immediately arrive. Why? Because everyone from the future will want to go back to the earliest possible time! One theory is that all we have to do is get a little sliver open and keep it open. That way, future technology will be able to barge through the tiny wormhole in grand fashion and take care of the rest.### Human: OK, I'm not a scientist, but I'll debate that. The 'kill your grandfather' paradox is fairly played out, so how about conservation of energy/matter. I have a room and a bar of gold. I let the bar of gold sit in the room for 10 hours, at which point I send the bar 10 hours back in time and I myself go back to a few minutes before I sent it back. I am now inexplicably in a room with two bars of gold, with which I simply stroll out. Where does the additional matter come from?### Assistant: You can't leave with both though, you have to put the first one into the machine or you can't keep the second### Human: Or what though? Imagine if I put both through, and then all four, and so on, until there was a whole room of gold that broke the conservation of energy rule? Yes, theoretically the next steps that occur involve all of the gold being fed back into the machine, but if it isn't? The sci-fi 'it fades away' explanation is ridiculous. The simplest explanation would be that it's simply not a possibility.### Assistant: The current understanding is you would be unable to not put the gold into the time machine. Probability would just skew against it happening.### Human: Wouldn't this mean that you would be unable to put ANY matter into the machine?### Assistant: No, just that you can't change what has already happened.

### Human: I think SRS is kind of a good thing CMV### Assistant: My main problem with SRS is that they don't tolerate dissent, and that any post, even outside their main sub that does not conform to their radical ideology will be brigaded and individual posts censored. Firstly, despite your "evidence", they are a downvote brigade. The very biased statistics were made by a mod of SRS and involved the use of implicit judgement by said mod. These statistics, while they look acceptable to the untrained eye, are complete garbage resulting from a purposefully biased methodology. Your third example makes me think that you don't quite understand how internet culture works. Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings, and even opinions which you don't agree with should not be censored. This has been the motto of internet culture since at least 2004. It is obvious that "problematic" views may arise from time to time, due to the uncensored nature of discourse. For me, they crossed the line when they started to reveal the personal information of reddit members whose actions they disagreed with, for the purpose of shaming them. I might also have disagreed with the person whose identity was revealed, but IMO they crossed the line. People should not be afraid to speak their mind online, for fear that they may lose their job for voicing an unpopular opinion.### Human: >My main problem with SRS is that they don't tolerate dissent, and that any post, even outside their main sub that does not conform to their radical ideology will be brigaded and individual posts censored. I havn't seen that much of SRS yet so I didn't know that >Firstly, despite your "evidence", they are a downvote brigade. The very biased statistics were made by a mod of SRS and involved the use of implicit judgement by said mod. These statistics, while they look acceptable to the untrained eye, are complete garbage resulting from a purposefully biased methodology. Another user pointed out that they were probably biased and that's very valid but I have yet to see anything that proves the downvote brigade >Your third example makes me think that you don't quite understand how internet culture works... This has been the motto of internet culture since at least 2004. I understand how internet culture works, perhaps internet culture is part of the issue? I understand "OP is a faggot" is a running internet joke and normally I take no issue with it but when the user is clearly saying that a faggot is a homosexual male and implying that that is a bad thing that's homophobia. >Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings, and even opinions which you don't agree with should not be censored...It is obvious that "problematic" views may arise from time to time, due to the uncensored nature of discourse. Don't get me wrong, I am all for free speech, 100%. I don't even dispute the existence of /r/niggers but what is wrong with community moderation? sombody says somthing sexist? downvote them. homophobic? downvote them. In my view SRS is showing the areas where reddit is instead upvoting things like that. >For me, they crossed the line when they started to reveal the personal information of reddit members whose actions they disagreed with, for the purpose of shaming them. I might also have disagreed with the person whose identity was revealed, but IMO they crossed the line. People should not be afraid to speak their mind online, for fear that they may lose their job for voicing an unpopular opinion. Holy shit I had no idea they did this, that really is crossing the line, source?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: What you're "proving" here is nothing more than people taking offense to a comment and downvoting it. SRS doesn't get a bunch of folks together solely to downvote people. We don't post something and say "OK y'all - let the downvoting begin". But, like every other circlejerk subreddit, people follow the link, and if they don't feel like it's adding to the conversation, they downvote it. I get really irritated when I see SRS being blamed for being a downvote brigade when *literally every other circlejerk subreddit here is also at fault by your own standards for the same thing*. You seem to think that SRS members meet in some sort of clandestine internet meeting room, where we secretly demand all members to go forth and downvote all things offensive. It never occurs to others that *lots of people downvote things because they are offensive, and they are offended when reading it.### Assistant: The issue is that SRS members are a bunch of butthurt babies who get offended by normal internet discourse and downvote it out of spite.

### Human: CMV: I think that making statements such as "It is never the victim's fault" is wrong and counterproductive.### Assistant: First of all, it is disturbing to me that you think being sexually aggressive is comparable to being homosexual. >Women should be able to take responsibility for when they are using substances. They do. But that doesn't make rape their fault. The thing is, being drunk in these cases is a red herring. Rape is rape when it is rape: if someone beats you into submission or murders you or cuts your ear off because you were too drunk to resist, yes, you could say, "well, duhhhhh, if you weren't drunk, they wouldn't have been able to do it!" but that's stupid. If you weren't at that place at that particular time, if you had said different things that maybe would have made them less angry, if you had done any infinite number of things differently in your life, it wouldn't have happened; but that's not the point. You are not to blame for ANOTHER PERSON'S malicious action. That's why drunk driving is the DRIVER'S fault, because that's **their** malicious action. If some guy were drunk, and, as a result, he became more aggressive and raped and assaulted a sober woman, is she raping him because he's drunk? Of course not. The idea is that we blame aggressors for their bad decisions, not the victims for not being cautious enough. I have seen this CMV a million times, and it basically comes down to this: you are recognizing that the actions of the victims in some part lead to the crime and are confused as to why we say "don't blame the victim" because of it. The aggressor is a thinking, feeling human who made a decision to bring harm to another person. Your view is dehumanizing that person, saying that they did not have a choice, and you are arguing that we should ignore that person's agency. Also, there are an infinitesimal amount of decisions the victim made that led them to that point that they could have done different. Why not never go to bars? Why not never drink? Why not never leave the house? Why not live constantly wearing a helmet and a suit of armor? You can ALWAYS be more careful, always more cautious. But when you are trying to protect yourself against other human beings, don't you see how it is fucked up that we put the onus of preventing bad things on the victim? Drinking and partying is fun. Not constantly wearing helmets is more comfortable. Being scared all of the time is annoying. Why should we have to be afraid all of the time of our fellow humans, who are supposed to be able to sympathize with us? It makes sense to be afraid of other animals, like lions, because they are comparatively mindless and the inner-workings of their brains are unknown to us; we only know that they are violent and territorial. But rapists can be your ex-girlfriend. Your father. Your brother. The cute girl you meet at a party. Why should you live your life in fear of other people? Yes, we have measures to prevent the actions of others but it does not mean we're responsible for them. Do you think that if one day I forgot to lock my house and it got robbed, the police would say, "too bad, it was partly your fault, so we're going to put less effort in than we would if it were less your fault." Not how it works.### Human: you explained this so well. & i also wanted to add that OP said that people lock their doors even though stealing is illegal. that's true, but when someone breaks down their lock & steals their belongings anyway it isn't in any way helpful to say "well you should have had an alarm". that's what happens to rape victims. "well you should have stayed home", "well you should have worn jeans". sure, the victim could have done those things but then if they got raped anyway they would still hear "well you should have taken self defense classes" or "you should carry mace". victim blaming is counterproductive because the problem is not that humans go to bars and get drunk in mini skirts. the problem is that other humans think that rape is okay.### Assistant: > the problem is that other humans think that rape is okay. Other humans also think that torture is okay or stealing is okay. There's always a percentage of people who have odd opinions. No sane human who lives in a civilized country thinks that rape is okay, you are overdramatizing this point in my opinion. Are you talking about countries like India or Saudi Arabia? Then I'd whole-heartedly agree. > it isn't in any way helpful to say "well you should have had an alarm" Well, yeah it acually is. It can significantly reduce the probality of being robbed.### Human: > No sane human who lives in a civilized country thinks that rape is okay, you are overdramatizing this point in my opinion. maybe i worded it wrong, maybe i should have said that the problem is that some humans rationalize that rape is okay in certain situations or that they decide that even though rape is not okay, they will do it anyway. whatever it is that rapists say to themselves to justify their actions doesn't particularly matter to me because i do not think that rape is okay ever. you most likely agree with me about that. i think that most people can agree that rape is never okay, and yet it still happens. so i'm sorry if i worded it wrong. also, back to the alarm and house getting robbed scenario.. so, your next door neighbor gets robbed while they were sleeping. they locked all of their doors, closed windows, shut blinds, etc. they still got robbed. in the morning you go outside and see what happened and your neighbors talk to you about how devastated they are. you wouldn't tell them that the break in was their fault, would you? because sure, they didn't have an alarm.. but neither do a handful of the other neighbors on the street. i guess what i'm trying to say is that in a neighborhood there are say 100 houses. maybe half of them have alarms. one house gets robbed and it's the one without an alarm. maybe if they had an alarm then when the burglar kicked down the door it would have scared them away, but just because they didn't have an alarm it does not the make the break in their fault. it is still a scary experience and it's still very sad for them to have lost their belongings and money.### Assistant: it just sounded as if it's an overall okay thing to rape for people. I can certainly agree with your explanation that some indeed think that, most likely along the thought that women are inferior to men. can totally agree with you, no question here. I think it can be said with pretty high certainty that rape, stealing, murder, torture etc. will always happen, until the end op humanity, it's just our biology. well, the way you describe it.. no of course I would not. they did enough to secure they home and make it reasonably safe to break in. nevertheless I could still suggest to buy an alarm, nothing wrong with that, it's a reaonable course of action. I think we're on the same page overall. never said it's the victims/houseowners fault for being raped or robbed, it's not at all, in no way. I'm just not looking at it emotionally. of course I wouldn't tell a rape victim that he/she should've done this or that in order to prevent it. but for the future giving advices that COULD potentially prevent it from happening.. why not? I also don't think that most rapes are preventable, given that they don't happen out in the open anyway. Changing your previous sentence from "well you should have had an alarm" to "you could buy an alarm to prevent it in the future" most likely summarizes my point. Cheers!

### Human: CMV: I don't think that retiring MIB agents should be neurolized### Assistant: Non-agents don't have access to current situations. There's a good chance they might see an alien or a situation involving aliens and get themselves involved thinking that they know best, or that they have to intervene when in reality everything is fine and they're just not briefed on what's happening. They very well could misread a situation, think someone is in trouble, that it's life or death, and screw up something delicate because they're no longer in the know. Better to wipe their memory than risk a retired, rogue agent destroying important interstellar relationships on accident.### Human: This is a good point, but looking at other intel agencies and police officers, they still watch the world news and see what is going on around them and when they're retired they might chat with their friends what they think is going on or what they would do if they were still in but you rarely see a retiree jump in.### Assistant: Is it really a good idea to just chat about the nuanced and complex issues surrounding the agency and risk that kind of a leak? And what if this happens in a populated area? A retired agent won't have a mind wiping device with them.### Human: I hope they would be more responsible than to talk like that in public, but I see your point. But, what is stopping them from talking while still an employee? Take Snowden for instance. He talked while employed. Shouldn't loyal employees be rewarded?### Assistant: No, I mean, what if they intervene on an issue because they were uninformed in a public place? Then the cat is out of the bag, there's no neurolizer. Do you really think on duty agents should be able to chat about current affairs with non-agency folks? That's a big risk. There's also the risk of retired agents using their prior knowledge to their own personal gain. They're not agents anymore and are under less scrutiny.### Human: >No, I mean, what if they intervene on an issue because they were uninformed in a public place? Then the cat is out of the bag, there's no neurolizer. Their extensive training would likely cover how to handle situations without a neurolizer, which would include vacations and retirement. I'd also like to think that after so many years on the job you would develop the intuition that *things aren't always what they seem* and to wait for more information before acting in any situation.

### Human: I think that moderately wealthy people have little to no understanding of what it's like to live as an average american does. CMV### Assistant: This is akin to saying that Americans will never know what people living in a third world country are experiencing. Harboring anger or hatred toward a person for not having the same experiences as you is unhealthy. You can't expect everyone to see the world from the same viewpoint. Wealthy people see the world from their own viewpoint, so what is "tight money" to them is obviously different for you. Denouncing them for this is not fair, you can't expect wealthy people to understand everything that poorer people go through unless they came up through poverty. I'd even go so far to say that wealthy people over exaggerate how bad living poor is, as they so actively avoid it and could not even imagine it. To them, being poor the epitome of all horrible things that could happen to them, even though people like you get along with a struggle, but still get along. They'd probably die if they were poor. Bottom line, don't be angry at people for not knowing what your experiencing because they can't experience it. People from third world countries are not angry at Americans for not knowing what it's like to live in such poverty, and you shouldn't be expected to know how everything is from the other side of the fence.### Human: >I'd even go so far to say that wealthy people over exaggerate how bad living poor is, as they so actively avoid it and could not even imagine it. Closest you came to a delta. That's a solid point, but I'd still argue that it's their responsibility, just as it's my responsibility as a worldview-weathy person, to recognize the need factor. You do bring up a good analogy, though, that need is still relative. Maslow's hierarchy comes to mind, but it's still difficult to see someone complaining about how they can't afford to bring more than two friends to their Tahoe lakehouse this spring break.### Assistant: Wealthy people generally cannot understand a less-wealthy person's worldview without actively living out that kind of lifestyle. It's difficult to hold them responsible to understand how everyone else sees the world. If that were the case, would they be responsible to know how a child in a third world country lives? How far down the poverty ladder do they have to go, how many lifestyles do they have to sample? Furthermore, wealthy people typically gather their idea of a poorer lifestyle from what they see. If they aren't around poorer people very often, they have nothing to go off of. You can't expect somebody who isn't exposed to that lifestyle to be able to seek out how that perspective looks. The best they can do is pictures and stories. > it's still difficult to see someone complaining about how they can't afford to bring more than two friends to their Tahoe lakehouse this spring break. We all have different problems. Sure, it may be difficult to see people complaining about those things, but remember that those "wealthy problem" complaints made with a standard. For poorer people, the standard of what is worth a complaint is different from what a wealthy person's standard is. One person's suffering does not discount another person's complaint. This is like saying that you are not allowed to complain about how your food tastes or how much you have because people in Africa are dying of starvation. To me, complaints take two forms. One is because of displeasure, the other is because a loss of potential pleasure. People who have a different standard, like wealthy people, have a different basis for what displeasure is. Because you don't have the option to go to a lakehouse, you aren't in a position to complain, but they are. Disliking them for having that option to complain is akin to asking others to come to your level, for everyone to be on the same basis. In that case, we'd all have to fall to the level of the lowest denominator, and nobody could ever complain ever again.### Human: Hmmm, we're getting closer. Holding them responsible is the key phrasing there. I definitely hold them responsible to get on my level, but at the same time I can't help but feel that's slightly justified. They, relative to me and impoverished people in africa, have the ability to embark in projects and businesses that could potentially make my and others lives' better, but choose to spoil their children. Meanwhile, I'm down here with little to no ability to change the system I live in... unless I manage to fund a project through someone wealthier than I. You're very good at this, though.### Assistant: Firstly, thanks! Moving on, I suppose obligation is the biggest issue here. > They, relative to me and impoverished people in africa, have the ability to embark in projects and businesses that could potentially make my and others lives' better, but choose to spoil their children. Meanwhile, I'm down here with little to no ability to change the system I live in This is a common way to look at the wealthy. As somebody who personally isn't necessarily "wealthy", I don't hold the wealthy responsible to use their money in ways that benefit me or others of lower wealth. Why? It seems that people with the ability to make a change are obligated to do so, but money works a little differently than say, somebody who knows CPR. If you have somebody who knows CPR in a crowd, and somebody starts to choke, and nobody else knows how to deal with the situation, then they are obligated to save that person as they are the only person capable. It would seem money works in the same way. People with a lot of money are capable of using that money to help others. But money circulates and trickles. Here's how it's different. A person with CPR holds a skill that saves a life. A wealthy person holds something that is easily exchanged. Now, when a wealthy person buys, say, a Ferrari, the money spent there is delegated to people who worked on that Ferrari, and from there to people at the supermarket, and from there into a factory worker or farmer's hands. The money trickles down from the wealthy person because money is exchanged, unlike somebody who knows CPR. Holding a wealthy responsible to help every suffering person is like saying anybody that can afford a plain ticket and some food is obligated to go to Africa and provide for those children. Idealistically, we'd live in a world where everybody is provided for, but we can't live in an idealistic world. People work for money, they get that money, and they can use that money however they wish. The only solution to your problem is socialism. Imagine a system where wealthy people, upon becoming wealthy, gave all their money to help poorer people. Eventually, there would be no wealthy people, as they'd have to conform to the standard. It would eventually trickle into a socialistic state, and socialism doesn't work out too well. In an idealistic world, socialism would be the best system, but our world requires a work/reward system, even if there are some flaws. The alternative would be catastrophic to our progress as humans. Finally, to illustrate my point a little better, a good example of this would be a wealthy person spending money on a nice car, or a nice house. They could have spent the money to ease the suffering of a poorer person. Then again, anybody who eats more than necessary for survival is in the wrong for not helping a starving person. In the end, luxury and superiority is a necessary incentive to drive the human race as it is currently.### Human: I am suspicious that you *actually* joined today. Well formulated, and so thoughtful. Kudos!

### Human: CMV: The growth of libertarians is caused by society being a better place to live, largely from pro-government/anti-libertarian causes### Assistant: So I have two general responses: First, political stances of all stripes tend to be most pronounced and vociferous among young people. There are many strident socialists and radical leftists stalking college campuses. So I am not sure that it is the advantages of youth in particular that are causing young people to be avowed libertarians as much as it is just how people's views tend to go. Second, you state that the prosperity of modern society which you think allows people to embrace libertarianism is a result of state interventions which libertarians oppose. But you haven't really argued that point. You've asserted that there are regulations and laws which you believe cause a good society and which you think libertarians oppose. But you haven't given specifics or a causal link between those regulations and the result you assert they've had.### Human: > First, political stances of all stripes tend to be most pronounced and vociferous among young people. I would agree but that point isn't as much a negation as simply an elaboration. > You've asserted that there are regulations and laws which you believe cause a good society and which you think libertarians oppose. That is precisely point: the argument that regulation needs to be defended as a valid societal operation is largely because of the fact that it was successful in the past: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Civil Rights Act, FDA standards, CDC standards, etc. Even if it could be argued to what extent they have worked, or that they haven't worked at all, I would still be correct in saying that the bigger correlation is that it's being determined more by their age than reasoned argumentation/life experience.### Assistant: >>First, political stances of all stripes tend to be most pronounced and vociferous among young people.' >I would agree but that point isn't as much a negation as simply an elaboration. It is a negation of the causality of your point. You're saying that libertarian beliefs are caused by the current state of society in respect to young adults. I'm saying that holding more extreme political views is just something that all young adults do, which is a different, and far more benign, causality. >That is precisely point: the argument that regulation needs to be defended as a valid societal operation is largely because of the fact that it was successful in the past: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Civil Rights Act, FDA standards, CDC standards, etc. Even if it could be argued to what extent they have worked, or that they haven't worked at all, I would still be correct in saying that the bigger correlation is that it's being determined more by their age than reasoned argumentation/life experience. I don't see the causality of those regulations being successful and therefore more libertarians. Libertarianism has existed for a pretty long time. The founders of the United States were arguably very libertarian, certainly they were for their time. And further, old programs are justifiably subject to new scrutiny. Just yesterday for instance [the Supreme Court tossed out an FDR-era agricultural law](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_feah.pdf) for being an unconstitutional taking of raisins without just compensation.### Human: The founding fathers set up single payer health care. I don't think that's very libertarian of them.### Assistant: Alexander Hamilton was also a founding father who I wouldn't say was a Libertarian at all.### Human: They were called liberals back then.

### Human: CMV: Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer is Jesus.### Assistant: The song was written by a secular Jew, Robert L. May. May stated that he based the song off of his own shy childhood. While he did later convert to Catholicism, it was long after the song was written and published, so I can't see any way that any possible parallels are intentional. [Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._May)### Human: From Wikipedia: >"In early 1939, May’s boss at Montgomery Ward asked him to write a “cheery” Christmas book for shoppers and suggested that an animal be the star of the book.[1] Montgomery Ward had been buying and giving away coloring books for Christmas every year and it was decided that creating their own book would save money and be a nice good-will gesture.[1] May’s (Jewish) wife, Evelyn, had contracted cancer in 1937 and was quite ill as he started on the book in early 1939.[1] May "drew on memories of his own painfully shy childhood when creating his Rudolph stories."[3] He decided on making a deer the central character of the book because his then 4-year-old daughter, Barbara, loved the deer in the Chicago zoo.[1] He ran verses and chapters of the Rudolph poem by Barbara to make sure they entertained children. The final version of the poem was first read to Barbara and his wife’s parents.[1]" He was asked by his boss to 'write a cheery christmas book'. This was his inspiration - Christmas. Well, what could be more cheery than an anthromorphized Christian parabel? With a dash of his own life to mix it up a bit.### Assistant: Secularized Christmas, though. I'm not saying that he did not put in Christmas imagery, or anything like that, but I am saying that he didn't use specifically Christian imagery. By the forties or late thirties, there was already a present idea of a commercial secularized Christmas, and he was writing a song for shoppers. I don't see anything to connect him to actual Jesus themes until his conversion to Catholicism.### Human: >I'm not saying that he did not put in Christmas imagery, or anything like that, but I am saying that he didn't use specifically Christian imagery Isn't this a bit contradictory? > I don't see anything to connect him to actual Jesus themes until his conversion to Catholicism. I can see lots of connections. 1. Both Rudolph and Jesus belong to a species that shouldn't be able to, but nethertheless can fly. Rudolph flies around the world one night a year, Jesus flies above his tomb for a bit before teleporting to heaven, or some shit. 2. Both have asshole friends - Judas sold Jesus out, the other Reindeers 'laugh and call him names'. Both Judas and the other reindeers soon learn their place, though. 3. Both have brown hair. 4. Both have 'father figures' that belong to different species - Rudolph and Santa (Reindeer and Human), Jesus and God (Human and ?). 5. Themes of redemption, forgiveness, doing good things - all jesus type stuff. 6. Both are 'leaders' and the main character of their stories, but are both underlings of an even greater character. I can keep going - this isn't even counting the ones mentioned in my initial post.### Assistant: > Isn't this a bit contradictory? Not really. Secular and Christian Christmas are two very distinct things. A secular Jew would be familiar with the secular Christmas of the area he was raised in, but probably not very familiar with the Christian Gospel. Generally the best way to look at whether a connection is intentional is whether it can stand on its own, so lets go through each one by one. > Both Rudolph and Jesus belong to a species that shouldn't be able to, but nethertheless can fly. Rudolph flies around the world one night a year, Jesus flies above his tomb for a bit before teleporting to heaven, or some shit. Flying Reindeer are based on the 1823 poem [A visit from St. Nicholas, or the Night before Christmas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas). Any idea of reindeer flying had already been established, therefore that fact that Rudolf and Jesus can't fly cannot be an intentional connection, as it was not made by the song's creator. >Both have asshole friends - Judas sold Jesus out, the other Reindeers 'laugh and call him names'. Both Judas and the other reindeers soon learn their place, though. Judas was more than a Jerk, he is one of two people (the other being Brutus) used as a textbook example of a betrayer. He sold Jesus to his death, and he later did not learn his place, be hung himself. Comparing that to reindeer teasing other reindeer and than learning their lesson is not even remotely similar. Furthermore, Judas initially accepted Jesus, but then betrayed him, while the reindeer initially shunned him and then accepted him. The narrative paths are complete opposites. > Both have brown hair. To be fair, I think you might be joking here. But I don't know for sure, so I'm going to treat it like it is serious. Jesus is never mentioned as having brown hair. In fact, the only mention of his hair color is white, after his return in Revelations 1:14-15. Even if his hair were to be mentioned as brown, billions of people have brown hair, and do thousands of species of mammals. Even if Jesus was mentioned to have brown hair, this would still be a huge leap to call an intentional connection. > Both have 'father figures' that belong to different species - Rudolph and Santa (Reindeer and Human), Jesus and God (Human and ?). I wouldn't call Santa a father figure at all. He only showed any attention when he was useful to him. Getting to the Jesus/God father figure dichotomy is a surprisingly messy theological issue, but all major interpretations of Jesus show him either as a Triune aspect of God the Father or as literally his son, neither of which would make God a father figure. The Catholic view, which May later converted to, supports the idea that Jesus and God are different aspects of each other, neither being a different species. > Themes of redemption, forgiveness, doing good things - all jesus type stuff. I don't find redemption, forgiveness, or good things anywhere in Rudolf's story. I see someone who was only accepted when they became useful. As for "Jesus type stuff", most stories have morals, and the morality is usually pretty broad and secular. Nothing in particular points to Jesus. > Both are 'leaders' and the main character of their stories, but are both underlings of an even greater character. Sort of? I mean, I wouldn't really call God's son his underling, and even if he were, nothing about being the main character but still being an underling is unique (or, to be honest, even present) in the story of Christ. Basically, I don't see how you can make a real connection between the two stories that isn't more than just very broad similarity or Texas Sharpshooting. The author's background doesn't point to any agenda that would include making a character and allegory for Jesus. The main "Christmas" character, Santa, had already been established as a secular component of the Christmas holiday, as had his reindeer.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: I think it's ridiculous that a 19-year-old can be jailed and labelled a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16-year-old. CMV### Assistant: Well first I'd like to say that where I live 16 is the age of consent, so... yeah. In Canada we have a "close in age clause" in our age of consent law. If you are within 5 years of age then the age of consent can be as low as 14. If you are within 2 years of age then the age of consent can be as low as 12. I personally believe this to be the ideal system. Now onto your point. Basically when it comes down to it a line *needs* to be drawn somewhere, and your country chooses to draw it at 18. It's just simply where the line is drawn, it's fairly arbitrary in my opinion, but that's all there is to it.### Human: It is true we need to draw lines in legalization somewhere, but, as you pointed out yourself, exceptions such as the similar age clause provide obvious ways to actually reduce prosecution when no harm has actually occurred. And I cannot see any valid reason why any state or country lacks these obvious caveats and instead will brand a participant as a sex offender or rapist (statutory rape) for a situation in which there can be no negative consequences and all parties, prior to the intervention of the law, benefited.### Assistant: I don't disagree with you, and I don't really have an argument, sorry.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: I think subreddits like offmychest who blanket ban/message anyone who posts in a sub they dont like, and then demands you follow their agenda or you'll be ignored and forever banned from participating, should not be allowed to use mod-mail/banning for this purpose.### Assistant: Honestly, the only way I am going to try to change your view is by saying that reddit is a wild, crazy place. We need the good, the bad and the downright ugly, otherwise reddit content will become the bland tastless mush that is gooped out every day on Facebook. I hate what they are doing as much as you, but I will support anyone and everyone on this planet keeping reddit a wild, crazy no-man's-land of brilliance and bullshit.### Human: You were indeed honest. I'm not sure this is going to be enough though. I feel this is something that's systemic and can be fixed. I agree with you on principle in every aspect except one. The fact they went beyond their sub. You want to spam my screen when I join your Sub to say hey, you posted in XYZ sub, so we banned you. Fine, i came into your domain at that point, I should be subject to whatever rules and messages you want me to see. The thing that really grates on me is that they took the additional effort to make sure that I *knew* I got banned from their sub and forced me to have to read their personal agenda/vendetta against that sub and are abusing the Reddit system to project power beyond just their sub. Coercion pisses me off. I'm a reasonable guy. I'm pretty rational. If what you say makes sense, I probably going to support your request. It is a request that really makes no impact at all except pissing people off. It's not going to gain or keep them members. (Im hard pressed that someone can argue the members as a whole are demanding that they systematically search out and ban anyone who posts in that sub for any reason at all). It's not going to shut the sub down. It's not going to convince anyone who wants to be in that sub to not be in that sub. For offmychest? It's going to bother some of their members. It's going to alienate people who might be interested in the sub or would be a great fit but their crime of posting a response you ran across in /r/all on a The_donald was your first experience and impression...which was to say hey, we're totalitarians over here. If you don't agree with us, fuck off mate. Paraphrased, obviously :P It's going to give a bad reputation among most people who are aware since the majority of people do not like being told where they are allowed to talk. There just doesn't seem to be any obvious pros for them on this. (And apparently there are a handful of other subs who do this too) +1 karma for a logical and rational argument. I'm not sure it's as valuable though. The explanation just doesn't cover my problem. This is the equivalent of sending someone to my front door, and knocking on it just to tell me that I can't' come to your house. Why? I ask. Because I went into another neighbors house to make fun of someone there who was being a douchecanoe is what I find out.### Assistant: I don't disagree with you, I also think that they are going far beyond what is acceptable behavior. I stuggled to find a way to change your view, and what I wrote is all I got. Personally, I think they are arrogant jerks and their behavior should be brought to the attention of reddit's administration, but I doubt they will take action.### Human: I was sincerely hoping there was something that I was just missing and that someone else would have that knowledge to share. I'm fine with the ban, not with the additional act of messaging every single person who posts in an entire sub. Hope you don't take offense that I'm glad I wasn't 'the only one struggling to think of a reason this should be okay. :P### Assistant: I agree with you but I'll add a point that I don't think you covered. The bot banning that those subs employ breaks reddit. If every sub did this for the various subs they don't like then reddit would be effectively unusable by the majority of people with accounts. For example... a sub with 5 million users bans everyone who commented in another large sub with similar subscribers. Now let's say this goes on and on with sub after sub banning other subs member. What you effectively do is ruin reddit for the majority of users. Now if that is technically breaking reddit then that is cause to ban a sub or the bot or the mod team. Imo the bot that does this is technically harassing users that have never used those subs.### Human: Bingo! I didn't' know a better way to word and explain that aspect but tried when I said "what if just 1% of the user base did this, and set it up for the front page subs.