Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: CMV: Manned spaceflight is very useful in propelling our society forward and expanding crucial knowledge.### Assistant: I'm not going to argue against the merit of space travel, I will be commenting on one specific argument of yours. >I am an Elon Musk fanboy. I think that despite being slammed and put out to slaughter by oil companies, he is spearheading a movement that will help climate change. Do you not think that for many average people, the possibility of living on Mars will make people care less about making personal sacrifices to limit their personal footprint?### Human: For sure, the idea that a neo-Earth is in the cards at some point in the future would definitely cause people to throw caution to the wind. However, I'm kind of thankful that oil companies are increasing their prices at the same time car companies are passing off the increase in spending onto the customer. This has caused the electric car to become cheaper. https://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/06/11-electric-cars-prices-lower-average-new-car/ I didn't background check this at all but it sounds okay I suppose.### Assistant: >For sure, the idea that a neo-Earth is in the cards at some point in the future would definitely cause people to throw caution to the wind. We don't actually know when we'll be able to have a neo-Earth. Terraforming Mars will take centuries, and if we look further out (say, at TRAPPIST-1) we have no guarantee that other potentially inhabitable worlds aren't already inhabited, and if those other planets are inhabited then I don't think that we have the right to just go in and claim those planets for ourselves.### Human: Yeah, I know the projection for a kind of irreversible catastrophe is due to climate change is around the year 2100 or 100 years from now-ish. Quite disturbing stuff. But one form of rectification does exist. It's a capitalist society. We can vote with our dollar. Our dollars can help the Earth.### Assistant: your average human doesn't have enough conscious foresight to make purchasing decisions based on effects that will manifest well after their death. all they see is that this mayonnaise costs 50 cents less than that one, and their kid is in the cart screaming and starting to give them a headache.### Human: I agree with everything you're saying. But I don't believe it speaks to the argument at hand is all.### Assistant: you argued that capitalism can solve environmental issues before they make the earth uninhabitable. I'm saying that I disagree.### Human: Well there is debates as to whether we are past the brink or not (in other words, just a waiting game). If that's the case, there is not fix. If that isn't the case, I do suggest that people using their money to buy the cheaper alternative of an electric car will *help*. I did not say solve the problem. You took my argument and polarized it.### Assistant: dumb short-sighted selfish capitalism is probably the reason why we're in this mess in the first place.### Human: Maybe so. Doesn't mean I didn't demonstrate that it can be a facet of the solution.

### Human: I believe it is harder to come out and be accepted as bisexual than it is to come out as gay. CMV.### Assistant: OP, I might argue your points about it being harder to come out due to social repercussions based on a few points. Let me tackle this by 1) showing what the misconceptions of being gay are, 2) talking about the gender difference in social outlook (there *is* one), and 3) finally, discussing why I think you might feel the way you do about some of your points. To tackle misconceptions about gays and potentially how it's **just** as bad to come out as gay (if not worse); - Gays are still viewed as disgustingly promiscuous. - If you're gay (especially a male), expect to have all your ignorant peers of the same gender assume that you're immediately sexually attracted to them. - People still think it's perfectly socially acceptable to use gay as a negative (i.e. OP is a faggot). How many people say "OP is a bisexual"? - There still exists a large population of people who think homosexuality is simply a choice or mental defect. - (Males predominantly), PDA is extremely frowned upon. Gender difference and social acceptance; - Let's face it, in America (I'm assuming you're from the US, OP?), females are more likely to be dismissed as "experimenting" than anything else. Males tend to receive a harsher social judgement. I'm paraphrasing Dan Savage here, but he said something along the lines of "A girl can kiss 100 other girls and still be curious. However, if you took the biggest, toughest, baddest dude you know, and he sucks *one* dick...he's labeled as gay forever." Given, Savage said it much better/funnier than me, but there's some truth to it. - Bisexual girls tend to be more socially accepted than their male counterparts. This, in part, is due to the douchey nature of straight men. I realize there's a whole lot more to it than this, but douchey "bros" certainly don't make it better. Lastly, why you might feel the way you do about some of your points; - I think maybe it's perceived that Bisexuals are more likely to cheat is because of the false notion that having twice the dating pool automatically means you'll take those opportunities. Honestly, I don't see how this makes it any *harder* to come out as Bi than gay...this point might make it *equally* hard to come out, but certainly not harder. - The notion that you can't really be bisexual & that bi women only do it to turn guys on. To be honest here, this one is a little muddy. Why? Because it's certainly the case that, somewhere in the 90s, it somehow became socially "cool" or "edgy" for a girl to say she's Bi. Now I'm not saying that you fall into this category, what I'm saying is that **the fakes have spoiled things for the genuine**. In my *personal* experience (I used to go out to the bars in my younger days), I met a good portion of girls who would go out and say they're bi and drink and make out/fondle other girls all the while having men take phone pics and cheer them on. None of these girls would ever date another girl, or get intimate with another girl. They would just say it's alcohol induced girlish fun, and the guys like it (yes, I've been told that before). It's a sad state that "Bi" has become the party girl code for "I like to get drunk and skank out to be an exhibitionist", but it's true. That's not the fault of the genuinely bisexual community. Again, I don't see how this makes it inherently *harder* for you to come out as bisexual. I see how it could make it harder for you to be taken seriously, but not harder on you socially. In the end, I'm neither gay nor bi (I'm a heterosexual black male), and I say this so that you know something about the stranger on the internet who's dolling out CMV advice. I don't personally know the plights of the LGBT community, because I've never had to live them. The above that I offer is from my personal observation, experience, and education.### Human: ∆, for explaining things that I may/would not have been able experience on my own since until later on in life 'cause, y'know. Drinking and all that jazz. It helped me understand why some of the anti-LGBT attitude may leak into the younger crowd.### Assistant: Confirmed - 1 delta awarded to /u/Ssutuanjoe### Human: You still owe me a delta, jerk.### Assistant: Please message the mods with a link to the missed delta.

### Human: I believe modern feminists should refer to themselves as egalitarians. CMV.### Assistant: Part of the reason feminism emerged as a distinct movement is precisely because egalitarianism historically failed to actually address women's equality. Part of the supposed goal of secular humanism was always *supposed* to be true egalitarianism, but whenever women leaders in the movement pressed to get women's issues address, such as women's suffrage, reproductive rights, equal wages and so on, they found themselves being told "yes that is important, but maybe later." Worse yet, women's voices in a lot of these movements were often entirely disregarded, as male hierarchies tended to assert themselves even in these supposedly egalitarian settings. Eventually, many women got fed up with this supposedly "egalitarian" movement that was not in actual practice egalitarian towards women, recognizing that this seemingly pleasant word managed to cover up for a lot of deeply ingrained prejudices and, yes, even patriarchal hierarchies. It is in this environment that feminism was born, and it is for this reason that many feminists are suspicious of those that claim the mantel of egalitarianism.### Human: This is a fantastic answer. I certainly can't add anything more relevant, but there are additional problems with OP's assertions. A crucial premise of OP's argument is that the term "feminism" has been spoiled because of its association with an all too radical (perhaps non-egalitarian) bunch of feminists. A sizable amount of the hostility towards feminism is supposedly attributable to this. Well, I don't know why anyone would believe that. There are a lot of 'conservative', very 'anti-liberal' people out there. Feminism has genuine relevance (from issues like abortion to issues like victim blaming in cases of rape) and this generates a lot of animosity. You don't change that with a cheap re-branding trick. Activists are always easy targets, especially when they include assertive women. There's no quick cure for that. There's more, but I'll stick to this one point for the sake of brevity.### Assistant: > Well, I don't know why anyone would believe that Because we've seen it with our own eyes? People who fight tooth and nail *for* women's issues will turn around and fight tooth and nail *against* any recognition that men suffer from some of *the exact same problems.* I know of self proclaimed feminists who are active in things like "Take Back The Night," etc, who thought nothing of making triggering jokes in front of a male rape survivor. Worse, it went on long enough that he had to leave the room to keep from breaking down in front of these feminists, who supposedly care so much about rape victims. Speaking of which... > victim blaming in cases of rape If their concern were truly victims, rather than simply women who happened to be victims, why is it that when I was assaulted my feminist "friends" blamed *me?* > Feminism has genuine relevance [...] and this generates a lot of animosity No, actually, the animosity comes from the fact that they often claim to be all about equality, but they behave as though they only care about "equality" *for women.* > don't change that with a cheap re-branding trick. A cheap re-branding trick? You mean like getting rid of titles like "chairman" and "policeman" and gender 'neutral' "he," etc? That sort of re-branding trick that feminists have been pushing for decades?### Human: I feel like the feminists I've met in my life are very very different from the ones redditors meet, the ones I meet are egalitarian and literally normal girls, but wow there's a lot of horror stories of feminists on this sure. Why are the ones I hear about on reddit so different than the ones I've known?### Assistant: I'd imagine because the one's people remember are the crazies.### Human: And the only other common terminology is given to misunderstandings (third wave feminists, marxists, hag-beasts spawned from satans womb, etc...)

### Human: CMV: I'd rather have Donald Trump as President than Ted Cruz### Assistant: Not a Cruz supporter, but there are some good reasons to support him over Trump. 1) Cruz is a strict constitutionalist and, (I believe) an originalist. While this brings in problems of his own, he's the only candidate who seems unlikely to firther increase the power of the executive branch because of it. 2) Assuming you want both people's plans to fail, Trump's can largely do his through Executive Action, wheras Cruz would need congressional approval he is unlikely to get (what with everyone hating him and all). 3) Cruz has considerable political qualifications, Trump has none. 4) A flat tax is SLIGHTLY less idiotic than sending the iRS notes saying "I win." 5) While you can definitely draw the conclusion that Cruz will say what is politically expedient (I actually dosagree a lot there. He's been more consistent than many politicians), Trump has pretty much proven he'll say whatever gets a headline. In the job of presidency, that means choosing between a candidate who does whatever's popular at the moment, or one who does whatever keeps the President in the headlines? Personally, I'm voting for Vernon Supreme for the free pony and the dental hygiene platform, though.### Human: Flat tax is regressive and punishes the poor due to the relative value of money. In fact it's reprehensible that anyone would be for it.### Assistant: I'm not disagreeing woth you. I'm just saying "compared to Trump's plan".### Human: I thought trump had a plan with simplifying the brackets down to fewer categories and lowering %s? Which isn't actually good from what I understand but is probably still preferable to a flat tax system. I'm not sure where the "I win" note thing is coming from.### Assistant: Here's the [page] (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform). I'm using hyperbole, of course. It's just those earning less than 25k singly, and 50k jointly.

### Human: CMV: age 40+ should not be a protected class, and if anything young people should be protected### Assistant: People don't want to hire you after a certain age because they think you will want too much money, or get hurt, or have to take off a lot of time for going to the doctor, etc.. My dad is having a hard time getting a job and he's 70. My stepdad couldn't find work in his fifties and gave up looking after a while.### Human: I don't understand why that should make them a protected class though. The statics indicate that for all the trouble older people have finding a job, younger people have even more trouble. How is this any better than prohibiting discrimination based on race, but only if the prospective employee is white? Sure, there are probably legitimate situations where employers have discriminated against somebody for being white, but that doesn't make white people an oppressed group.### Assistant: The protected class isn't about statistics of job opportunities, it is about individual evaluations. Think of it this way; if you found out that a higher percentage of homosexuals were employed than heterosexuals, do you think that protection should be removed? The protection doesn't exist because homosexuals are/were in need of jobs, but because their sexual orientation was being used as means for not hiring them rather than their qualifications. Ageism is the same. It's not an issue of employment statistics, but rather valid or invalid reasons for not hiring somebody, or for firing them. When young people don't get hired it isn't because of their age; it is because of their inexperience. They are certainly cheaper and have more energy, so it would make sense to hire them into any job on that basis; except they lack the experience that years on the job give you. That is relevant. But not hiring somebody who does have experience because they are older and may have more medical problems, or closer to retirement, etc., well, that's discrimination if it doesn't affect their job performance. Of course if they perform much worse because of their age, that's fine but then it isn't because of their age, it is because of their worse performance. It's not about statistics; it's about discrimination using invalid criteria for job performance.### Human: > But not hiring somebody who does have experience because they are older and may have more medical problems, or closer to retirement, etc., well, that's discrimination if it doesn't affect their job performance. If a 70 year-old would outperform a 30 year-old (because of experience, as you say), why would I hire the 30 year-old? I would only prefer younger people, if I get something out of it. It might be right that the performance on the job is the same (WHILE they are working), but time off work IS relevant to the employer. It is *not* discrimination in other sense than economical if you need a reliable employee throughout the year.### Assistant: > If a 70 year-old would outperform a 30 year-old (because of experience, as you say), why would I hire the 30 year-old? Because he earns much less and you hope you can compensate for the performance loss with unpaid overtime the 30 year old didn't get sick of yet. The 60 year old already had enough of that and knows all his rights and resources at his disposal.### Human: > Because he earns much less and you hope you can compensate for the performance loss with unpaid overtime the 30 year old didn't get sick of yet. The 60 year old already had enough of that and knows all his rights and resources at his disposal. So the 70 year-old does not outperform the 30 year-old (on a pay-performance comparison). QED.### Assistant: Right, so fundamental disagreement here. You think people should be compared on the basis of what you can extract from them, including illegal and abusive tactics. I think people should be compared on the basis of what they can do in a 40 hours week (though I favour a reduction of that, but that's for another time), and that all this unpaid overtime and such tactics should be made illegal. So making 40+ a protected class does exactly the sort of thing I want to happen.### Human: > So making 40+ a protected class does exactly the sort of thing I want to happen. It does not do any of what you want. (1) You cannot force anyone to hire someone. (2) If you make it hard for companies to fire older people they will hire fewer older people or will fire people as they get older.

### Human: I believe Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal economic system, is achievable, and would not lead to out of control monopolies. CMV.### Assistant: Ignoring entirely the question of monopolies, you do remember what the conditions for *workers* was like during the Gilded Age, right?### Human: I thought that workers in the gilded age had the choice of working on farms, working in factories, or not working at all. People chose the factory work since it was better than working on farms or not working at all. There is more to be said about working conditions in that period then to just point at the evil monopoly guy. What do you think?### Assistant: Yes, but the actual conditions were still terrible when compared to today. That's what regulation, safety laws, minimum wage, and so on are for.### Human: They have improved because people asked for it. AKA free market. Someone offered better condition, people moved there... so on and so on.### Assistant: But this manifestly did not happen at the turn of the century. When there is a labor surplus, people will not get better jobs because the free market will push wages *down*. Wages might even rise overall due to other reasons, but employers won't offer better jobs unless they have to. And they don't, if they can get workers for cheaper. Even now, companies ship labor overseas because it costs less for them to do that.### Human: If it costs companies less than they can charge less for their products. A net positive for the worlds poorest because this means workers will need to use less of their wages to buy the same things.### Assistant: Quite possibly, but that's beside the point- I'm just saying that companies won't bother to raise wages if they can get away with paying less.### Human: Are you claiming there could be an identical company that could pay their workers more and be just as competitive with their products prices?### Assistant: No? I'm just saying companies work to maximize profits and when labor is cheap, they hire the cheapest labor?### Human: So how is a company "getting away" with paying less if an identical company couldn't do any better?### Assistant: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Minimum wage laws are to make sure workers get paid enough to live, despite any incentives a company has to lower their wages.

### Human: CMV: British agriculture should be allowed to decline and land stewardship should be transferred to the National Trust, Forestry Commission, and environmental charities### Assistant: It's very important for a country (and especially an island country) to maintain an ability to feed itself via farming in a case of unforeseen emergencies which can make trade for food difficult or impossible. Maintaining farming infrastructure is essentially an insurance policy against starvation should things go wrong.### Human: I just don't see that happening though. What emergency could realistically occur such that the UK would need to be completely self-sufficient? I think the risk of our country's environment being significantly degraded by agriculture is far greater than the risk of some event that leads to starvation because we don't produce enough food to sustain ourselves. Also, how much food does the UK actually produce for itself? It seems unlikely that it would be enough to feed the entire population.### Assistant: > What emergency could realistically occur such that the UK would need to be completely self-sufficient? War? Plague? Nuclear explosions? Etc. That's the thing about unforeseen emergencies - they are unforeseen. Events like that happened in the past, and will likely happen again. Is it really all that difficult to imagine a deadly virus that sweeping the world, causing countries to close borders, for example? >think the risk of our country's environment being significantly degraded by agriculture is far greater than the risk of some event that leads to starvation because we don't produce enough food to sustain ourselves. There are ways to farm sustainably. There is no need to decline the amount of farms / farmers to achieve the goal of sustainability. In fact "food self sufficiency" implies sustainability. On the other hand, a starvation-type of event can cause widespread death and suffering. >Also, how much food does the UK actually produce for itself? It seems unlikely that it would be enough to feed the entire population. UK currently produces ~40% of the food it consumes. But in a an emergency it can feed itself, by not exporting foods and switching farmers to high-yield staples as opposed to more cash drive crops currently planted.### Human: That does seem fair in principle, but again I just can't imagine those types of events as something that is likely to happen, or at least not in a way that we would survive by being self-sufficient. I think that war would absolutely not lead to the total isolation of the UK unless the whole of Europe were taken over and the country blockaded. This has, I suppose, happened in the past, but I really cannot see how a WW2-esque situation would happen again. Does anybody think a third global war is likely? In terms of biological threats like disease, again, I feel like by the time the pandemic got serious enough to threaten us sufficiently to force us to close our borders, the likelihood of the country surviving whilst the rest of the world perishes is pretty slim. Could you elaborate on your statement about food self-sufficiency implies sustainability? Do you mean that long-term self-sufficiency requires food production to be done in a sustainable way? It seems to me that food production can be kept stable indefinitely whilst still severely damaging biodiversity. In terms of erosion, apart from the country's mountainous areas, of which there aren't comparatively a great many, such erosion wouldn't be drastic enough to detriment farming. Thus, as the population expands, deforestation can continue without risk of crop yields being affected. This is a further disincentive for farmers to bother caring for the environment they occupy.### Assistant: > I think that war would absolutely not lead to the total isolation of the UK unless the whole of Europe were taken over and the country blockaded. There is no need for total isolation for Britain to reel from lack food imports. If Europe is embroiled in some sort of wars with Russia/ Middle Eastern Nations /etc (far from impossible) - end of exports of food to UK will seriously hurt and lead to mass death, if UK is not self reliant. >feel like by the time the pandemic got serious enough to threaten us sufficiently to force us to close our borders, the likelihood of the country surviving whilst the rest of the world perishes is pretty slim. No one is talking about the world perishing. A dangerous enough plague like Ebola (even with lower mortality than Black Death)might very easily lead to borders closures - and if UK is not ready - mass death and suffering due to starvation. >Could you elaborate on your statement about food self-sufficiency implies sustainability? Do you mean that long-term self-sufficiency requires food production to be done in a sustainable way? Yes. >It seems to me that food production can be kept stable indefinitely whilst still severely damaging biodiversity. Biodiversity is not a goal in itself - we should only care about as far as it affects human life (in both short and long term). If we can be self-sustainable indefinitely (very long term) with a decrease in biodiversity - than that decrease in biodiversity is not a big deal. >Thus, as the population expands, deforestation Deforestation has historically been a very bad thing for self-sustenance. Many civilizations collapsed over Deforestation. So excessive Deforestation clearly is not compatible with long term food self reliance.### Human: Your first two points seem pretty reasonable. I would say that I don't value human survival over biodiversity necessarily. I think we're in a position to be able to not damage the environment, if not benefit it, whilst keeping our society afloat and developing, and I think that this ability means we have a responsibility to do so. You're right about deforestation, that was my mistake. You've convinced me that it's enough of a national security issue that we can't abandon it. So have a delta. I suppose what we should really be pushing for is truly environmentally sustainable farming. Δ### Assistant: >So have a delta. I suppose what we should really be pushing for is truly environmentally sustainable farming. Thank you. As I side, note, I think the correct environmental approach is to push for local sustainable responsible farming everywhere. Relying on exported food is just "passing the buck." There are also additional environmental impact costs incurred by transportation of food from far away places.### Human: Is it possible for all the world's population to be fed by local sustainable responsible farming? Could moving to local sustainable responsible farming in some locales lead to poverty and famine in others as economies of scale go down?

### Human: CMV: Adding edit notes to reddit comments is a waste of everyone's time in the vast majority of instances.### Assistant: When a comment is more than 3 minutes old, edits create a little * star next to the age of the comment. Edit notes help explain to users what was changed, so people don't have to wonder what happened. Did they edit for grammar, did they edit to remove or add a whole section of the post, did they edit because auto-correct messed up spelling, did they edit to thank someone for being gilded... etc... It adds clarity, otherwise an edit could do anything, even potentially changing the entire comment and the entire meaning. *Edit: For example, you should now see a star next to my post. If this line wasn't here, could you tell what I changed?*### Human: I'd imagine 99.9% of users wouldn't wonder whether it was due to auto-correct or grammar. As I said at the top, an edit would make sense if it changed the entire meaning, otherwise it's irrelevant.### Assistant: Except, there's no publicly available edit history. People can go back and ninja edit entire posts, and all other users see is a star. There's no way of telling what the post originally said, or what was changed, unless the user clarifies why they felt an edit was necessary.### Human: If someome was gonna do that couldnt they just do it anyway and say "edit: grammar" regardless? Still seems really pointless to me.### Assistant: He's not talking about cases where someone is being intentionally deceitful.

### Human: Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV### Assistant: It makes them look bad, but not from a "legal" standpoint necessarily. The point is that if some politician's wife can't even trust him, then why should voters trust him? There are millions of people who are perfectly capable of upholding the trust of their spouse in everyday life who aren't simultaneously being trusted with lawmaking decisions. The people we *are* trusting with these important decisions should at least be able to hold their personal lives together.### Human: >The point is that if some politician's wife can't even trust him, then why should voters trust him? I can trust someone to have my interest in mind when doing his job, even if his wife has no idea where his dick is. If however, he ran as a "family values" candidate, then he loses all credibility and should lose his job. If they run on the promise of nothing but representing their constituency, I don't care what they do as long as it is legal, and they do their damn job. That last part is the real important thing.### Assistant: > even if his wife has no idea where his dick is. I think you're making light of the issue that cheating poses. It's not about "what he does with his dick"... It's about his ability to practice willpower and maintain long-term promises. I want politicians to behave legally and do their jobs. Everyone wants that. But their job involves keeping long-term promises that end up governing how we legally handle morally charged issues. If I'm faced with two roughly equal candidates and I know that one of them is a cheater, I'm going to choose the alternative. I don't think I should trust someone to have my interests in mind when he didn't even have the interests of his loved one's in mind.### Human: While it was a little more tongue in cheek than it should have been, I meant to convey the idea that people can be horrible at personal issues, or even have an understanding with their wife about things such as this, but that doesn't affect their ability to legislate. Unless they made that a point of importance in being elected, I don't think it is as big a deal as many would make it out to be. >If I'm faced with two roughly equal candidates and I know that one of them is a cheater, I'm going to choose the alternative. If I am faced with electing a person know for a previous extra marital affair, but has a superb voting record that reflects the interest of their constituents, or an unknown, I will probably go with the track record as long as they never portrayed themselves as anything else.### Assistant: > or even have an understanding with their wife about things such as this Then it wouldn't be cheating. I don't know of any politician that has claimed open marriage to get out of a scandal like this, it would be interesting to see how that turned out.### Human: Yeah I was thinking hypothetically, but just because in private they agree with extra marital leeway, doesn't mean they want that public, or that the media/voters will understand and react well.

### Human: CMV: I don't understand the subset of feminism that is also transphobic.### Assistant: If you look at your post look at the way you state things >"Personally, I think the point of feminism is" Not a hard definition that everyone can accept, but rather what it means to you. The problem is that everyone is doing that. There is no ONE thing feminism is anymore. This is kinda why a lot of people think feminism is trying to be TOO many things to too many people. Feminism really started as a fight for women's legal rights and specifically equal legal rights, but in some cases special treatments. It isn't that anymore and everyone knows it. Its become too broad of an ideology trying to encapsulate every single fight and battle as part of its own. Your entire view of feminism is fighting gender roles, yet many feminists would disagree with that. In fact some feminists have no problem with gender roles, especially a lot of "second wave" feminists and first wave feminists. If you want to understand all sides of the feminist debate from the trans exclusionary feminists to the anti feminists you have to understand that first point. Feminism no longer has a single set of beliefs or goals, but rather has tried to become everything to everybody.### Human: O I get that, and it's why I emphasized "I think" and not "feminism is". But I still don't understand the logic that TERFs use. Like, I don't understand how their "version" of feminism works.### Assistant: Well I think for them you have to take gender roles out of it. From the ones I have talked to (and note my understandings are colored by the fact that I was arguing with them about other things). But when it comes down to it, it seems they believe mainly "feminism is about women, and trans people aren't 'real women', they can get their own movement". You seem to have some split in ideology in different schools of feminism on understandings of sex and gender and there are variations that appear along those lines of understanding. But that's a totally different conversation, feminist gender theory is a mess to me, it seems to defy anthropological understanding at every turn.### Human: I hate to ask this question because it sounds so hateful but im genuinely curious. Can they(tgw) ever be considered "real women"?### Assistant: Honestly it depends on your view on gender. If you view gender as purely a social construct, then yes. If you view gender as a social construct built on a biological basis then maybe (this is where I sit). If you view gender as purely biological then no (though this view is actually not accepted widely in the scientific community, though one could look at it as the norm of western culture). From the anthropological perspective since gender reassignment surgery has become a thing no culture has really accepted transgenderism as an absolute change of gender. They tend to be treated as either something in the middle or a new category all on their own that are like women/men but not. F2M transition tends to be slightly more accepted it seems if you look at post treatment surveys, and suicide numbers. SO disappointing answer, Its complex, but it kinda looks like mostly no with exceptions in some cultures and subcultures. There really isn't an easy answer... BTW nice username You can always spot the WOT fans!### Human: Thanks. Honestly, when someone says woman I think sex and not gender. Its really difficult to understand gender. And thanks.### Assistant: Yeahhh with the "gender wars" going on its kinda a tricky topic, I try to stick with as scientific of an approach to it as I can, but that makes some people incredibly unhappy.

### Human: CMV: Sexual education should not be limited to safety. We should also be encouraging sexual experimentation and teaching how to improve one's own sex life.### Assistant: 1) [Those who start having sex at a young age end up in worse relationships later in life] (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/25/0956797612442550.full.pdf+html). Even when factors such as socioeconomic status, education, physical appearance, family background, etc were controlled for, the results still held. 2) [People who have sex early on in relationships have crappier relationships.] (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/24/6/766.pdf) Once again, the results were valid even after accounting for potentially influential factors such as education level, religiosity, etc. 3) [Women are prone to feelings of regret and low self-esteem after hookups] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18476484). The study was done with college students, but it seems relevant nonetheless. [This] (http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sexual_Regret_in_College_Students.pdf) study's results also support this idea.### Human: Do you think that number 3 has anything to do with how society looks at women who have sex?### Assistant: That may have some influence, but it's not the sole or main reason. In the full study it mentions "four common reasons for sexual regrets of action: (a) Participants’ decisions were inconsistent with their values (37%); (b) alcohol influenced their decisions (32%); (c) participants’ partners did not want the same thing the participants did (28%); and (d) participants did not use condoms (25%). Women were more likely than men to regret a sexual encounter because they felt pressured into it." It also mentioned the idea that since women would bear the brunt of the burden should an unwanted pregnancy occur, they're "much more cautious than are men about engaging in sexual intercourse with multiple partners (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and thus [have] greater regret when they do engage in casual intercourse."### Human: The two first reasons are directly tied to social pressure and expectations. The third one is more complex, but you can easily imagine that people not comfortable with their own desires would encounter this. As for the fourth reason, it sounds like a fairly reasonable thing.### Assistant: The fourth reason is also consistent with my view that sexual health should be taught and encouraged. I maintain that it's a very weak point.### Human: Yes, I agree with you completely. That was my point.

### Human: CMV: As long as users use the downvote button as a "disagree" button, users have no right to complain about censorship on reddit### Assistant: Someone being a hypocrite and whether that person is right on a discrete issue are two separate things. I have a lot of principles that I don't always follow myself. When I don't follow a belief I hold, that makes me a hypocrite. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong in that belief to begin with.### Human: I am not saying that one's own participation in a form of censorship invalidates the belief that censorship is wrong. I am saying that you lose the "right" to object, so to speak, if you practice the same behavior, unless there is a significant difference. (e.g. a father who smokes is correct when he tells his son that smoking is bad for you, but loses the right to object to it, unless his son is under the legal age, in which case there is a significant difference between their situations such that he can object to the illegality of it).### Assistant: I believe that people should be more environmentally conscious. Sometimes I get lazy and don't place something in the recycling bin when I probably should have. Does that mean I lose the right to say something to someone who dumps trash on the street?### Human: Those aren't equivalent. If you put recyclables in the trash, you don't have a right to complain about others doing the same. You could still complain about littering (but not if you yourself litter).### Assistant: They are equivalent. This isn't a discrete and clear action like murder. This is about a principal. "Censorship" is a loose concept. Showing disagreement by downvoting something isn't the same thing as simply deleting that thing so that others are denied the ability to read it. Free speech, and censorship, is much more nebulous. When you ask a bunch of people define free speech and censorship in the context of what is and isn't permissible, you will get several answers. Murder is much more clear cut.### Human: Littering and disposing of recyclable materials in the trash are not at all equivalent. I'm not sure how your first statement supports your argument. I agree that censorship is a bit loose (although I would argue that murder is just as loose, given the many types and circumstances). However, I am not talking about all censorship. I am talking about taking efforts to keep others from viewing content that you disagree with on this one particular forum. In this case, you haven't shown any distinction between a user and an admin/mod. I am not making broad arguments about censorship in general. We'd all agree that the owner of a religious website has a right to remove anti-religion posts from that site in a way that the government does not.### Assistant: basicly if you can't even agree on what is eqauvalent that means that its hard to argue your point, because your point does not include enough situational discression, while there are people who behave like hypocrites, that doesn't mean all of them are, thus unless your view is a small portion of those who down vote are hypocrites its wrong### Human: I specifically said that insomuch as one uses the their power (up/downvotes) to suppress content based on what they agree with, they lose the right to complain about someone else doing the same. I didn't say everyone who votes is a hypocrite. Personally, I vote only based on relevance.

### Human: If we live more frugally, we can afford to work less, and if we work less, we can do more of what we love. CMV.### Assistant: You do realize that your lifestyle is only possible because so few people are living it, right? If we all followed your lead, there wouldn't be enough roadkill to eat, or enough places to park the bike campers, or enough people paying taxes to sustain the roads and parks you are using. I'm not sure how well your stance on health insurance will hold up if you get cancer (which happens even to healthy people eating healthy diets). Finally, how would you raise a family in your system?### Human: >You do realize that your lifestyle is only possible because so few people are living it, right? I don't realize that at all because it's not true. Food forests are the ultimate goal for folks like me, which represent the ultimate restoration of ecological systems ravaged by annual agriculture and the re-integration of humans into the ecosphere. If we had millions of people planting nut trees and perennial vegetables, the world would be improving vastly, ecocide would wane, and hungry mouths would be fed. >enough places to park the bike campers My camper is 4' by 8'. You're saying coast to coast, we'd be totally saturated with bike trailers? >I'm not sure how well your stance on health insurance will hold up if you get cancer (which happens even to healthy people eating healthy diets). When you get down to that argument, you've got to confront similar facts: you could die in your sleep. You could be eaten by a tiger that escaped from the zoo. Chinese triads could gun you down. We're all going to die, so why be more afraid of any one death than any other? >Finally, how would you raise a family in your system? I wouldn't until my food forest was yielding a lot, and I had other folks with me. Then, collectively, we'd take care of the children and homeschool. Before I had kids, I'd work for four years and save up a lot of cash. I'd want about $15,000 for each kid at minimum in advance, and I'd replenish it each time I had to spend it. With other folks with me, we could collectivize this fund and it'd be more stable.### Assistant: You glossed right over the infrastructure bit, which was a huge deal. If everyone lived your way, basically paying no taxes, there would no infrastructure at all. We would be living similar to the Native Americans were hundreds of years ago. Is this what you are advocating? I've seen you mention visiting libraries, parks, colleges, taking bike rides (on roads and trails, I assume), etc. These things would not exist without millions of people paying taxes. Who's going to protect you if someone wants to take your things? I feel as if you have underestimated just how much you are gaining from the "system".### Human: Prepare yourself for an essay on the Noble Savage. *"For the Native Americans, prior to the arrival of the White Man, lived in absolute peace and harmony with Nature and with each other, needing neither jails, for there were no criminals, nor armies, for there was no war."* I'm shocked how many people actually believe that narrative.### Assistant: I almost thought you were using that as a valid text and was getting so mad.

### Human: CMV: Students who receive no financial aid from their parents should be able to declare independent on their FAFSA.### Assistant: Well, um, what would stop parents who could support their children from simply not so that the government would step in and give then all this aid money that their parents could afford and would but now they don't have to. If I'm a parent who makes six figures a year why wouldn't I tell my kid to declare independance so that the government would pick up the tab. It sure as hell would save me a lot of money.### Human: That is a tricky situation. I see more fairness in a system that gives you the chance though, if that makes sense. If that is the governments reasoning for it, then they may as well take guns away because we might shoot each other with them. It's like punishing the people before anything bad happens. Like smacking a kid for just looking at the cookie jar. This is a weird analogy. While I don't have an immediate solution to that, I still don't find it fair to basically say fuck you to every student just because of that possibility. You can't even file a fucking FAFSA without your parent's information-- I mean it just seems really fucking broken from my perspective.### Assistant: I agree it's not perfect, maybe not the best. Still, what about one kid with parents who can barely afford to feed her/him and can't pay for college versus another kid who has been well taken care of, even spoiled, but the parents won't pay for college? Surely people will be fucked over either way. Are there so many wealthy parents denying their kids the care they are able to provide that your way would help more than the current system?### Human: That is a good argument, generally speaking the middle class kid is more prepared than the lower class kid. I say this as one of those lower class kids, so I could be biased. But even I think it's unfair to not give that middle class child the opportunity to say "hey, I know my parents have money, but they've left me in the dark, what should I do?" without hearing back the answer "get married or knock a bitch up." And then that kid looks at the lower class kid, doesn't understand his upbringing, why he got to go to college and not him-- just because he's poor? The middle class kid probably doesn't understand that. Where would he have learned it? Sociology? Oh yeah. Anecdotal is anecdotal, I know. But I grew up in a family of 3 on about $10,000 per year, loads of domestic violence, school changing, a relocation, etc etc. My load isn't worse than anyone elses, but I've seen my share of shit. I honestly can't look back on my life, think of an ideal middle class child who didn't have those problems, and say it's fair that I get this opportunity and he doesn't. It just doesn't feel right.### Assistant: Why would any parent in their right mind offer to pay for their child's education when refusing meant the government would pick up the tab? I agree the system is not perfect as it stands, but unless we want to move towards federal funding of higher education, I can't think of a better system. How would your system prevent parents that are willing and able to pay from simply refusing for the obvious financial gain? After all, you can always use the money to buy your kid a nice wedding present after college instead.### Human: I haven't proposed a solution system, the idea of my CMV is to see if one is needed or if the current one stands. So we will have to leave that conversation for some later point in time, what I first want to establish is that I think your viewpoint is very flawed here: > Why would any parent in their right mind offer to pay for their child's education when refusing meant the government would pick up the tab? This isn't about the parent, it's about the student. Why are we looking at what the parent could potentially be giving the student and then telling the student "You're on your own?" Why don't we, I don't know, actually find out how the student is supporting himself? It's like me saying well you've clearly got internet and a computer so you must be 100% financially stable and not need any assistance whatsoever. However, about the system bring broken in general-- there might be some potential in more evenly dispersing grants/aid if we can find a way to drive tuition down. Tuition is historically higher than it's ever been, almost entirely due to high grants/aid being offered to students. Wait this is perfect! Why would a university not charge higher tuition for school when it knows students are receiving higher amounts of financial aid from the government? So with that question, I'd say the system already has problems like the one people keep presenting to me with the "parents ain't gonna pay shit if they don't have to" argument. In the meantime, middle class america is getting its eyes fucked out.### Assistant: You're not really addressing the one and only reason that financial aid is based on parents' ability to pay regardless of their willingness to pay: There is absolutely no incentive to pay for college as a wealthy parent if your child merely has to state their financial independence. Until YOU can prove that this wouldn't be a problem in the current system, you're essentially just complaining about how life isn't fair. The problem is that parents very rarely decide they will not fund their students education, but their children still go to expensive private colleges or out of state universities (as opposed to seeking scholarships or less expensive in state universities). Parents decide to not pay for a lot of things for their kids. The difference between poor and rich parents, though, is that not only will the rich kid have more opportunity throughout their life completely apart from how much their parents fund college, they're also going to inherit a lot more than the poor children. There can be better systems, but if you would like to disregard them in this discussion, YOU need to state how funding for actually needy families would not be split and massively reduced in order to give the money to everyone.### Human: Check edit 3, I'm more after an exemption process### Assistant: That's a good point, and I'm sorry I didn't read thoroughly enough to find this part of the discussion! At the same time, this seems like an awfully narrow exemption of an already small group. The majority of students paying their own way through college still receive SOME financial aid from their parents (such as summer housing, occasional payments for food, etc), and there aren't many who would oppose financial aid for the truly financially independent. When I was in school I had close friends that went through this process of showing complete financial independence from a parent or parents (basically had to show how the parent had already proven to be unsupportive and absentee). It wasn't easy, but it was granted. Are there situations that you see that haven't been covered that should be, and do you mind elaborating (or showing me where you've posted them)?### Human: Hey no problem I'm sorry my answers are short I'm kind of busy but trying to keep the conversation up since this thread got so popular! My girlfriend is a pretty good example, her parents let her stay at home but don't help with college at all. She could pay for her own room and board but not college. In the meantime she is totally stuck under their influence with no way out. I honestly feel like if you can file independent on an IRS file, you should be able to also do so on a fafsa with further investigation of finances (to make sure you aren't trying to cheat the system). Overall though I'm just after a way to be able to tell the government "look my parents didn't abandon me but they don't think they should have to pay for college and I'm getting screwed because you guys are just assuming they are giving me money"### Assistant: Assuming the college can only be paid for privately, that sounds like neglectful parenting. If your girlfriend were five years old and her parents weren't willing to pay for food for her to eat, they would be arrested. Education is more expensive and a more abstract need, but up to some level it should be considered one of the responsibilities associated with having children, unless it is provided by the state.

### Human: CMV: I believe people are capable of being prejudiced against robots or artificially intelligent beings, and that that prejudice is a type of racism. Racism against robots is a social issue we will have to deal with in the future.### Assistant: I would probably use the word prejudice to describe it instead of racism. But this is a very hypothetical question. We do not have any artificial beings which have anything close to sentience and sapience. Certainly nothing which is self directing and has free will. Whether that discrimination were immoral would depend on the very specific facts of what that artificial being's nature is. Discrimination based on race is considered immoral because race has nothing to do with any morally relevant quality of humanity. It is likely that an artificial being would have facts about it that are relevant to morality, and discrimination based on and directly related to those facts would be appropriate.### Human: That's interesting. AI systems would definitely have aspects about them that are more relevant to morality than race is. Do you have any hypotheticals or examples for that? One thing I was thinking about is the issue of consent. An AI system that is intended only to fulfill human's desire for intimacy or love could be programmed to consent to anyone, so are you saying that in that situation our human-based ideas of consent might not apply to it?### Assistant: > That's interesting. AI systems would definitely have aspects about them that are more relevant to morality than race is. Do you have any hypotheticals or examples for that? The three moral systems we generally use are utilitarianism, which values happiness; libertarianism, which values personal freedom; and moralism, which forbids certain acts as intrinsically wrong. If robots are incapable of being happy, they have no moral value under utilitarianism. If robots don't have self-directed choice, they have no value under libertarianism. If robots don't meet the arbitrary thresholds of moralism, they won't have any moral value under that system either. Given that the majority of people use a mix of those three systems, then the morality of robots is highly debatable. After all, how do we find out if a robot has free choice, happiness, or a soul? We can barely figure that out for humans.### Human: >After all, how do we find out if a robot has free choice, happiness, or a soul? We can barely figure that out for humans. If we don't fully understand these things about humans (and most philosophers would say we don't), how can we conclusively say that a given robot *doesn't* possess these qualities? I say that if a robot convincingly acts like it has human values / sentience, we should default to treating it as though it genuinely does. Given the choice between: A) Treating robots with respect, resulting in being silly by treating mindless programs as though they were people and/or giving sentient beings the rights they deserve and B) Treating robots with little/no respect, resulting in being trigger-happy in destroying/modifying maid/butler programs and/or in abusing and discriminating against sentient beings and denying them rights. I'm fine with choosing A.### Assistant: Wouldn't choice A result in an eventual self-fulfilling prophecy? Supposing that no current robot has any sentience, would treating them as though they had and working towards them developing a human-esque sentience be ethical? Why not use very strict regulation on AI development so that it never progresses to sentience in the first place, making the entire question here moot (and also staving off the matrix).

### Human: No claim is so harmful or crazy that merely discussing it (at CMV or elsewhere) should be forbidden. CMV### Assistant: If anyone *seriously* wants to discuss anything, fine, good for them. Plus, a sub like this is probably the best setting for a view you *know* is controversial/often maligned; it shows the rest of us you're only here because you want to learn. Some people use the pretext of 'rational debate' to pedal an extremist view, though. Check out what BUGS are in the context of white supremacy. I actually found one in this sub not long ago. It's been removed now, but OP posted a seemingly innocuous CMV about having perceived a lot of differences between racial groups in his life and in the literature. Fair enough, 'help me understand why I shouldn't be racist.' Except... [he's posting in /r/whiterights at the same time about how he's trying to disseminate his own version of their 'mantra'](http://www.reddit.com/r/WhiteRights/comments/19zh11/my_new_mantra_to_be_disseminated). He clearly didn't want his view changed, he wanted to try to slip some good ol' fashioned racism in under the radar. Now, not all white supremacists are *quite* stupid enough to post simultaneously and on the same account in a white supremacist subreddit about how they're trying to bring racism out into reasonable discussion, so it's difficult to pinpoint exactly when someone posts a CMV in bad faith, but there's good reason to scrutinize the intentions of someone posting a *really* terrible view to be changed. More generally: There are some groups who want to discuss an issue in a setting where everyone comes in with the same presuppositions. If I'm in, for example, a feminist reading group, I don't want to have to start every meeting by convincing half the group that feminism is a good idea in the first place. That's not to say challenging or critiquing feminism is too dangerous or inappropriate, it's just that you're in the wrong place to debate its very existence.### Human: I completely see where you're coming from, but I think I'd still welcome anyone to come and share their terrible views, even if they come in 'bad faith'. It's better that other people encounter such ideas in an open forum, such as this, where they can be analysed and critiqued and their faults brought to bear, than somewhere that says, or implies, that "this is the way things are, questions and ideas to the contrary are not welcome." In fact, I'm inclined to say that it is the things which people are generally afraid of discussing which are most in need discussing in an open environment with people offering differing opinions. The anonymity that the Internet offers is valuable bonus - allowing people to discuss things which they might otherwise be embarrassed, afraid, too intimidated to bring up.### Assistant: I think I didn't make myself clear: The type of person I'm talking about is deliberately attempting to forestall actual rational debate, while attempting to appear to not do so. Their ideas won't be analyzed and critiqued if this type of person gets what they want, because they're deliberately trying to prevent you from doing that. I'm not just talking about "I'm a massive white supremacist but I realize I'm in the minority, CMV." I sincerely hope that kind of person comes here and learns something. I'm talking about people who, from the get-go, know they're pedaling propaganda and don't want you to stop them from doing so.### Human: But is that a relevant to certain beliefs being to bad to discuss? That's more an issue with the person than the view.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: I believe that the advancement of technology has made money pointless and that capitalism is only holding the world back - CMV### Assistant: Resources are scarce. We have monetary systems in order to allocate those resources to satisfy the most amount of wants according to their utility. Regulated capitalism is simply the most efficient monetary system available. Unless you can demonstrate that technology has somehow eliminated scarcity (it hasn't), then we still require money.### Human: Scarcity exists for physical objects, but not for ideas. The degree of scarcity for precious metals is nothing like the scarcity of oxygen. The scarcity of essential resources that sustain comfortable human life is mostly an issue of creating the technologies that can produce them in reasonable quantities. Consider the parable of the King of Siam and the aluminum fork: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RIKYNPOFR4w#t=1308s Given a big enough movement within the STEM fields, we could make something close to the American lifestyle accessible with a much smaller carbon footprint for most of the world.### Assistant: You're not wrong, but this doesn't address OP's post. I agree with you that scientific advancements will significantly reduce scarcity, and one day even eliminate it. That day has not come yet, however, and therefore money isn't "pointless" yet.### Human: It addresses the second point, which is that "capitalism is only holding the world back".### Assistant: I don't see how. You were talking about scarcity, and making a western lifestyle possible with fewer resources with advanced technology. What does that have to do with capitalism?### Human: If resources are abundant, capitalism is no longer necessary.### Assistant: Are resources abundant yet? No. Therefore, capitalism is not unnecessary, and OP's premise is incorrect. Remember, OP said: I believe the advancement of technology *has made* money pointless While this may be true *one day*, it is not true yet.### Human: You should read more the than headline. OP's post is written in the future tense. > Yet I realize that the shift I'm speaking of is **unlikely to happen anytime soon** and it is for that reason that I'm here. > To my mind, the type of society humanity **should be transitioning** to is something similar to what organizations like The Venus Project### Assistant: Then what he wrote in the body of text is totally at odds with what he summarized in his title. He has already proved himself wrong. First OP said that money and capitalism were already obsolete, then he says that he realizes they're not. Case closed.### Human: I will admit that the title could have been better written, but it was not the point he was trying to address.

### Human: CMV: Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons are and forever will be better than the original Disney cartoons such as "Steamboat Willie".### Assistant: Maybe that's because there is 20-30 years between them. The cartoons Warners were doing in the 30s at the same time Disney was making their early Mickey shorts are more comparable. There are some wonderful Disney cartoons, like The Band Concert and Clock Cleaners. Also, Silly Symphonies are still amazing to watch these days, and Steamboat Willie probably holds up better than you think.### Human: You're right about the comparison of Steamboat Willie and some of the earlier Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons, such as the ones with Bosko, Buddy, Inky, and those characters. Maybe I shouldn't have just mentioned Steamboat Willie in my post, because it's somewhat misdirecting. But whereas Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies went on to create such masterpieces as Duck Amuck, What's Opera, Doc?, Rabbit of Seville, The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2th Century, and countless others, Disney never went on in an interesting enough direction in terms of theatrical cartoons.### Assistant: >Disney never went on in an interesting enough direction in terms of theatrical cartoons What!? Making FEATURES wasn't an "interesting enough direction!?"### Human: Again with misdirecting statements. I meant theatrical cartoons in terms of the seven-minute ones. In no way is this argument insulting the feature films created by Disney. Sorry about that.### Assistant: So your argument is that Warners made better shorts. Well Disney made an entire movie comprised of some of the greatest animated shorts of all time, called Fantasia. Many of their early shorts incorporate music in this way, like the Band Concert (which in my opinion is one of the greatest cartoons ever made) Three Little Pigs and numerous Silly Symphonies cartoons which were incredibly innovative on the level of color and sound.### Human: Correct. My argument is that the Warner shorts were better than Disney and Silly Symphonies'. I should've phrased what I said differently, because it looked like I was comparing Warner to Disney altogether rereading it. And I'm glad you brought up Fantasia as well because I meant to do so. I love Fantasia as well and it really is a great movie. I think what made it so great was how masterfully Disney hid one of its biggest secrets: that Mickey Mouse is one of the most unfunny cartoon characters ever created. Steamboat Willie and The Band Concert were good cartoons and all, but they weren't very funny, and it wasn't all that interesting either. It may have been interesting at the time, but Mickey's character of all-around goodness has just been overused to the point where it's dreadfully insipid. The best cartoons Disney had to offer weren't Mickey/Minnie/Pete cartoons because they're hard to get into. If Mickey was one of the characters in a good cartoon, it had to either not be meant to be taken as very comedic, such as Fantasia, or have a better character such as Donald, Goofy, Pluto, or Chip and Dale in it.### Assistant: Why do cartoons have to be funny? I agree Band Concert isn't funny but it fills me with joy every time I watch it. Same with Fantasia. I don't think Looney Tunes are "better," just *different.*### Human: That's fair. Cartoons don't have to be funny, but they should be interesting, and while I find Fantasia to be, I don't quite find Band Concert to be. And aside from the level of comedy, I think Looney Tunes is just more magical than the original Disney cartoons.### Assistant: Hmm, well that's just your opinion. Personally, I think you need to re-visit some of those Disney cartoons. They really are great.### Human: That's true, it is my opinion. The point of this sub is to try to change that.### Assistant: I think you are expecting the wrong things from this sub. The idea is you give your view and people give you alternative points of view and evidence/facts to see if that can change your mind but some subjective things cannot be changed (at least rarely are done so). If you give some objective points people might be able to have a discussion but more subjective things like saying one is more magical cannot be evidence (unless you polled everyone and had a magic index).### Human: I think I need to compile some actual evidence and repost this. Thank you.

### Human: CMV: Animals in the wild suffer just as much, if not more, than animals raised in captivity.### Assistant: I think your perception of "regulated western farms" is woefully ignorant. The conditions for animals in the US in most of the factory farms are deplorable, there is little to no regulation, and it's even illegal to film/record the abuses that occur there. Your comparison isn't really fair to me in the regard. You're comparing something with little variability (living in the wild) to something with immense variability (living in captivity). Obviously living in a zoo is much different than being a factory farmed cow. Even if you only compare zoo animals, how do you know one zoo is treating the animals well over another zoo? The last thing I'll ask you to consider however is the spectrum of intelligence. Recently, sea world decided to stop keeping orcas in captivity, not only because often these creatures were not treated well, but because orcas are extremely intelligent creatures, and it's morally wrong to keep them in captivity as a performance creature. So in addition to the question of "are they being treated well" is "can they feel depressed simply from being in captivity." I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they do feel depressed. So basically there's a few questions i would ask: what animals are we talkong about? Wild cow vs. farmed cow? Wild cow is "better off". Wild lion vs. lion in well maintained and ethical zoo? Maybe the lion is "better off" but even then, do you know that he *feels* better off? Is it an animal that is in captivity *and* used for performance? If so I'll take being wild over being a performance animal all day. Lastly as an aside, I beg you to look up how fucked up the meat industry is in this country. It is not at all well regulated and simply a disgusting industry. Watch Food Inc. or some other well known documentary. Also read about antibiotic use in factory farming.### Human: > You're comparing something with little variability (living in the wild) to something with immense variability (living in captivity). This is a great point. My mother's cocker spaniel will have a great life, sure. The chicken that she's having for dinner, however, had a short miserable life. > Lastly as an aside, I beg you to look up how fucked up the meat industry is in this country. I don't think this is an aside - it goes right to the heart of OP's premise. OP's comments (like animals raised for slaughter living longer, healthier lives, and slaughter methods being less painful than predation) seem to show a pretty poor understanding of the meat industry.### Assistant: Oh the other hand, the chicken I'm having for dinner (pastured, free range from my farm... Slaughtered and processed by me, yesterday) had a short life that was safe, comfortable, and as ideally-suited to chickens as possible. Plus, its death was instantaneous, humane, and as painless as you can imagine. Compare that to when a predator kills a chicken "naturally" in the wild (or a chicken equivalent like a turkey or Guinea hen) by degloving the neck or eviscerating the bird and eating the internal organs while it's still alive. Factory farms are a thing and they are terrible... And 99% of meat comes from there... But in all these vegan vs omnivore, farmed vs wild threads, my environmentally friendly, ethical, healthy way of providing meat for myself, my family and my neighbors gets lumped into the "modern industrial animal agriculture complex" the same as a Tyson concentration camp chicken. [These are my animals](http://i.imgur.com/CBLloBk.jpg)... That's their every day until I kill them swiftly and without struggle... And they have 10x the space in forest and edge pasture off-camera behind the cameraman (my wife, lol) My pigs have a similar setup, with 2 acres of forest all to themselves to forage on... Then, one day... They get a bowl of sugared milk and shot in the head. They literally don't know what hit them. With all sincerity, if I could die like that, instead of a long decline due to cancer or dementia (a "natural" death for modern humans), I would take that option in a heartbeat.### Human: Look, I was raised on a farm, I get it. And kudos to you for being as ethical as possible toward the animals you eat. To be clear, I don't think you're getting "lumped in" with Tyson in these conversations - I think you're simply getting ignored. You said it yourself, you are the 1% exception to how meat animals are treated in the US. I spend a good deal of time in /r/vegan and other threads about animal ethics, and someone who raises their own meat will always, inevitably, chime in on the thread. On one hand, I appreciate you lending your perspective and potentially opening people's eyes to a better way of being an omnivore. On the other hand, I wonder if you're providing a (probably subconscious) justification for the 99% of meat-eaters in this country by overstating the role of the organic farmer in the meat industry. I'm getting off-topic here, but as I was wondering why farmers like you tend to be over represented in these threads, it occurred to me that it's probably because you guys are nearly as passionate about animal rights as many vegans. You would almost have to be, to spend so much time and effort raising and slaughtering your own animals in order to avoid participating in the factory farming industry. Anyway, I'm rambling, but just some food for thought.### Assistant: It's definitely the passion for animal welfare, but a lot of us are constantly trying to promote sustainable agriculture... And it works, to an extent... The way I raise meat is a growing trend (though still basically insignificant). Another factor is the prevalence of people who have seen Cowspiracy and take everything they say as gospel. That film specifically focused on "sustainable" meat production in one segment and concluded that it's basically just as bad as factory farming. The stats they quite, in many cases, are nonsense. So, when I and people like me see a thread about meat production, my first thought is "well, might as well go in there and respond to a few absolutist comments about animals and farming. Just because I'm the 1% that does it this way doesn't mean that it always has to be 1%... It may grow to 5 or 10% in my lifetime... But not if we all shut up and let people say that there is literally no way for anyone to eat meat without torturing animals and destroying the environment.

### Human: I do not believe on denying someone a job because that person is overqualified. CMV### Assistant: The problem is that most overqualified people apply as more of a temporary placeholder, while they are looking for a better job. It takes several weeks to several months to train in a new hire and get them productive. This training period can be pretty expensive, and companies will want to hire someone who intends to be with the company for a couple of years, not a couple of months. If experience shows that overqualified employees tend to leave for greener pastures on their first opportunity (which I don't blame them for at least), why would a company hire them, over someone who just meets the qualifications and is more likely to stick around for longer?### Human: What if the person is **not** looking for a temporary position?### Assistant: How would the employer know?### Human: Maybe ask, instead of just assuming.### Assistant: "What are lies?" Alex. I'll take "How to fake it through any job interview" for 800.

### Human: CMV: Casual sex, and especially a one night stand, is dehumanization and objectification. And is wrong--for both men and women (no double standard here). I really want view changed and I'll explain what led to this belief inside (please read that part too before responding).### Assistant: I believe that you don't have to objectify a person to only want sex from them. You can still recognize them as a person, with feelings, a family, and needs. The same could be said with countless people you interact with daily. You order take out food. All you want from the person is your food; you don't care how their day is going or what they do when they're not working. You just want the food. And guess what? They probably just want your business. They don't legitimately care that you "have a good day!" The feelings are mutual. It would be wrong if the food worker was into you, so he started giving you discounts, but you did not feel that way about him, but kept going back and encouraging the discounts. Then you would be using him to your benefit and objectifying him. Even if this doesn't help, I really hope someone can change your mind and you can learn to accept yourself (and your desires) for who you are.### Human: Fair enough. I realize this. I guess I've just internalized sex being much more than food or business. The highest way of relating to another person if that makes sense. you know, the whole "become one flesh" thing### Assistant: That's the problem...you've had forced upon you a fairy tale idealization of what is simply just one of the most basic and primitive mammalian drives we have. In order to simply survive with the most sound possible physical and psycho-emotional states, we must (and are driven to) eat, drink, sleep, eliminate waste, get cool when it's hot, get warm when it's cold, stay dry, stay clean, form communities, and mate. The whole >"...highest way of relating to another person if that makes sense. you know, the whole "become one flesh" thing." and the idea that you objectify someone when you have non-procreative sex with them are just parts of a fairy tale that people a long time ago decided to tell other people so that they could impose their own idealized "morals" and power onto others. We are attracted to, and sexually desire, other people, because of a very primitive urge and need to continue the species. There is nothing immoral, or objectifying, or evil, or wrong in any way, about doing what your bio-chemistry and physiology naturally drive you to do. Editted: to fix errant formatting that made some of my own words look like part of a quote.### Human: But humans are different from other mammals in many ways. Are you denying that special psychological bonds are made through sex?### Assistant: Psychological bonds can be made through sex. Not all sex leads to those bonds though.

### Human: Free will is impossible, CMV.### Assistant: What you are saying is that people do what they will, but their will is predetermined, so it's not 'free will'. For it to be free will they would need to 'will what they will', but in a deterministic or probabilistic universe this is impossible. I would say your definitions need adjustment. If you believe that people must 'will what they will' for it to be considered free, then I could just use your initial objection to the deterministic universe, and apply it here. That is, if you 'will what you will', where is that initial will coming from? It needs to be willed into being as well. We have an infinite regression here - the definition of free will isn't even really coherent. Rather, I think free will is a process that we go though. This process in fact: "The brain uses input to reach decisions in set, chemical ways and translates this to output." That process *is* your free will. It's what makes your choices different from, say, a rock rolling down the hill. Both processes are deterministic. But the rock just rolls. Your brain does some sort of computations and runs a decision making process. Now defining exactly what makes your brain different from that rock is a little more tricky.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Free will is the process of making choices.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I'm not seeing the connection between thoughts and the rest of the conversation that we were having.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: You're not the author of your thoughts, you *are* your thoughts.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I would argue that your conception of the self is incomplete unless it includes the unconscious mind. You are *every* aspect of yourself, not just those aspects over which you seem to have some degree of conscious control. Keep in mind that there is a difference between what you *are* and what you *do*. The fact that you have no control over what you are is not really relevant, because we are concerned here with what you *do* as a being that already exists and already has certain characteristics. Think of it this way: Being what you are is not something that you are forced to do against your will. As soon as you begin to exist--as soon as there is a "you" for us to talk about--you already are what you are. At every moment of your existence, you are already situated within the world and in possession of certain biological predispositions. You are not some kind of independent essence that is "shaped" or "influenced" by those things--you *are* those things.

### Human: CMV: it should be way harder to get, and keep, your driver's licence### Assistant: 20 supervised hours? Where are you? I'm in Sydney and it's 120 here! Can I ask what you have in mind? Like, suspending licences more? Or more like making re-tests more frequent? If so, how often? What happens if a licence-holder fails? How do they get the chance to re-acquire their licence? I just want to know what I, as a driver who's never gotten so much as a parking ticket, would be in for.### Human: Heh, well I haven't thought so much about the solution, only the problem. I'm a complainer not a fixer! In Perth it was 25 or 50 when I did it, I think it's going/gone up though. But, off the top of my head: * More numerous and more rigorous driving tests when you initially get your licence * More hours supervised by an official party when "doing your hours" (as opposed to your Mum or Dad) * Harsher punishments for offences. In NSW you can be caught speeding by 45km/h over the limit and not lose your licence (six demerit points, I just looked it up. In Perth it's 7). To me that kind of speeding is grossly irresponsible and you should lose your licence for... a year? More I think... * Re-tests every so often throughout your life... especially over a certain age. In order to re-acquire your licence you need to demonstrate you have to skills and responsibility to not endanger your own life or others. Maybe start the whole process again, go L through P plates all over. I think a re-test couldn't be by itself enough to lose a licence, but go towards the case for or against. If you had a terrible record *and* dismally fail a test it probably says you shouldn't have a licence, but if you have a clean record but just fail, you could probably be deemed competent. A whole lot more context and research would be required to properly define this though. EDIT: how do you do friggin' dot points. I'll get there### Assistant: i mean most people's entire lives are built around having access to cars and thus ability to work in a place different from where they live. Removing driving privileges can have huge effects on earning potential. I think your mental model is an <20 year old from a middle class family trying to get on the road but your proposal cuts far wider than that. > Re-tests every so often throughout your life... especially over a certain age. already have something like this in many locals, do you mean srengthen?### Human: To be clear, I'm not saying we strip people of their licence that slide over the limit by 10km/h, I'm talking about people that are being irresponsible and risking lives. I also think if there was an increased amount of education and testing when people got their licence in the first place, there'd be fewer people being irresponsible and hence, losing their licence. I get your point, but if *not* driving at 40km/h over the limit is too much to ask of a driver, isn't that a bit ridiculous?### Assistant: I mean, now you're using arbitrary limits to judge danger. What if the limits are too low? On the Autobahn for example those speeds are perfectly safe.### Human: Correct, it's an arbitrary number I picked out as an example, it's just to illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Sure, you could argue going that far over the limit is safe when on the highway (I'd disagree), but would you argue going 80km/h in a 40km/h school zone is safe? It's just an example I plucked out. Edit: side note, a few hundred people per year die on the autobahns and more so in the bits with no speed limits. [Some interesting stats here about how higher speeds increase crashes](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths) but that's another CMV for another day.### Assistant: Most speed limits are set at the lower bound of the average free flow speed of traffic to generate maximum revenue from people who are "speeding" yet still driving safely. Even the license suspension system, at least in New York, is not designed to remove unsafe drivers from the road; it's designed to extract the most amount of money from people driving faster than the deliberately low speed limit. Driving recklessly is one thing, but for most people who drive at a safe speed above the limit, the system is designed to generate income.

### Human: CMV: People who aren't okay with killing an animal shouldn't be okay with eating one### Assistant: I think you should clarify your point to say 'people should find it morally acceptable to kill animals' rather than 'people should be absolutely fine with doing it'. There's a big difference between these two - I can say that I don't find it morally bad for someone to smear shit all over themselves, but that doesn't mean I'm absolutely fine in doing that myself. The problem with not making a distinction between these two is you get into a very 'feels over reals' area, where people aren't logically deducing the correct moral decisions but are instead just going on what they 'feel deep inside', which is often very strongly associated with the current societal trends. I imagine a lot of people used to feel uncomfortable around gay people, even though they supported the gay movement. This is great, because it means that even thought people *feel* one way, they can see that the FEELs of it are wrong, and instead rationally come to the conclusion that gay marriage is fine. Moral choices like these shouldn't ever be done on a 'gut feeling' kind of thing.### Human: > There's a big difference between these two - I can say that I don't find it morally bad for someone to smear shit all over themselves, but that doesn't mean I'm absolutely fine in doing that myself. That's not quite the same though. Smearing shit on yourself affects only you. Killing an animal affects the animal. People who don't want to kill because they'd feel too empathetic with the animal, but have no qualms killing it with their money, are hypocrites. I don't personally kill my meat either, because there's no real practical need, but there'd still be a moral responsibility to kill the animal or stop eating its meat if I was at the slaughterhouse with the gun in my hand and Ol' Bessy in front of me.### Assistant: right, but 'feeling empathetic' to something doesn't equate to deciding on morals. We can't just say what we feel is right, is my point (and you can't be a hypocrite if you act according to your morals, rather than your feelings).### Human: > (and you can't be a hypocrite if you act according to your morals, rather than your feelings). By this logic, you can never be hypocritical. If no moral consistency is required to be moral, you are completely morally unbound. If you feel a moral objection to a step in a process, you can't be morally justified when you enjoy the result of it. You can't support throwing young men into war if you wouldn't want to pull a trigger and kill an "enemy". If you can't pull the trigger, or chop the axe, or whatever, then maybe that thing shouldn't be done at all.### Assistant: Being repulsed for killing an animal because you feel empathy for it isn't the same as morals though, morals are something you decide on and work out, not something you just feel in your gut and go by. If these were 'morals', how did we ever abolish slavery? Even the people against slavery back then probably would have felt a little repulsed by the idea of blacks being equal to whites. Doesn't mean that their morals weren't that blacks and whites should be equal, just that they'd grown up in a society that preconditioned them to think like that. It's like when you support gay marriage, but you still feel uncomfortable around gay people, b/c you just haven't been exposed to it.### Human: > morals are something you decide on and work out, not something you just feel in your gut and go by. A "moral" is a personal rule and can spring for anything. It's largely irrelevant. However, if you are to be morally consistent, you need to kill that animal or stop eating meat. >If these were 'morals', how did we ever abolish slavery? I'm not talking about the people who do have moral qualms killing an animal. Such people are not morally consistent if they still eat meat. If you can't whip the slave, shoot the foreigner, or kill the cow, maybe that action shouldn't be done, and you shouldn't support it. If you feel a moral objection to performing any step in a process, then you can't enjoy the result of it. If you just faint from seeing blood, the story is different, but if you feel it would be "wrong" for you to kill that cow, then you're a hypocrite if you still eat meat. >It's like when you support gay marriage, but you still feel uncomfortable around gay people, b/c you just haven't been exposed to it. I disagree. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone negatively, except for feelz. Killing a cow hurts the cow. Do you really not believe that people have an obligation to at least be willing to "get their hands dirty"?### Assistant: > A "moral" is a personal rule and can spring for anything. It's largely irrelevant. However, if you are to be morally consistent, you need to kill that animal or stop eating meat. You can feel bad about something and it not be one of your morals - just like you can feel uncomfortable around gays, but not disagree with gay marriage! > I disagree. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone negatively, except for feelz. Killing a cow hurts the cow. Some people might think gay marriage degrades society. We haven't even agreed that cows hurting is a valid bad thing.### Human: > We haven't even agreed that cows hurting is a valid bad thing. In which case we've hit philosophical bedrock. I can't convince you that torturing animals, or even humans, is objectively morally wrong, because it isn't. Nothing is. If you want to zero in on strict definitions of morals, we won't get much further than that. I used the words "moral consistency" because I assume most people want to act consistently in their moral choices. If you don't _want_ to kill an animal, because you feel it'd be somehow wrong to take its life with your own hand, you shouldn't eat meat. If you just pass out at the sight of blood, but you'd be willing to accept that responsibility if you could, then I don't see a problem. However, if you simply can't bring yourself to take that life, you're a hypocritical person - or at least one who doesn't want to get their hands dirty.### Assistant: I believe there's a term called something like 'anthropomorphisation', which means to assign human characteristics onto other things. Like when you see a face in your toast. if a human were to do this to an animal (which we all do) and therefore didn't want to kill it, does that mean they're hypocritical and morally believe animals have a right to life just as much as we do?### Human: > if a human were to do this to an animal (which we all do) and therefore didn't want to kill it, does that mean they're hypocritical and morally believe animals have a right to life just as much as we do? What are you asking me? If you're a hypocrite for eating a steak while not wanting to kill Fido? Abstaining from killing an animal because you befriended it, or whatever, is a separate issue. If you're still willing to kill an animal, then you're consistent.

### Human: CMV: GMOs are necessary, efficient, and safe. Monsanto is not an "evil" corporation, despite the Agent Orange days.### Assistant: >GMOs are necessary I will concentrate on this one. While written in the title you did not explain what you think they are exactly necessary for and why. I assume you mean it as the often used “we need GMOs to get rid of hunger” argument. This is not true because of the following reasons: 1. Hunger is not a production (agricultural yield) problem but a wealth distribution problem. Abolishing poverty by introducing [basic income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) would also get rid of hunger. 2. Feeding more people with less land is desirable. It can however be achieved with other methods than GMOs: - Reducing food waste (~40% total production). Abolishing agricultural subsidies will make food more expensive increasing the incentive for efficient use. Basic income will guarantee that still everybody can afford enough food and has also the means to properly store it (e.g. fridge). - Reducing meat consumption. Meat production is very inefficient, needing much more water and [land](http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Meat_eats_land.pdf) compared to plant based foods. A diet high in meat requires [4 times](http://foodprintsandfoodsheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Estimating_Food_Production_Capability.pdf) the land compared to a completely plant based vegan diet.### Human: > Reducing meat consumption. Meat production is very inefficient, needing much more water and land[2] compared to plant based foods. A diet high in meat requires 4 times[3] the land compared to a completely plant based vegan diet. It depends on the type of meat. It's true that beef, pork or chicken require a lot of space and produce a lot of waste but things like shrimp, other crustaceans or even worms don't take up a lot of space. Various types of worms, grubs and beetle are very rich in protein but would be extremely cheap and convenient to produce, the only obstacle is our society's cultural revolt at it.### Assistant: Sure, eating worms is better for the environment than eating cows, pigs and chicken. As the pain feeling capability and degree of consciousness are also much lower it's also the more ethical choice. But if I have the choice to get my protein from beans or worms I'll choose the beans any day. Getting enough protein is really a non-issue for those who can afford and eat enough food overall. Additionally, while the [ECI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_of_conversion) is higher for worms than for cattle ([20-30% vs 10%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy#Environmental_benefits)) it's still more efficient to directly eat the plant-based food.### Human: Beans don't contain the full spectrum of amino acids, though, and many, if not most, people don't digest beans well.### Assistant: There are beans which provide [complete protein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein) (e.g. soy). You can also combine beans with grains to get all essential amino acids.

### Human: CMV: Logic and Philosophy should be taught at a younger age to better education and prepare our youth for more complex jobs and an overall more educated culture.### Assistant: I'm a teacher. I've taken both of the courses you mentioned. In my school, we actually *do* teach philosophy starting in sophomore year of high school. I'm not against teaching these courses, but the **subject matter has nothing to do with critical thinking**. It's all about how it's taught. Case in point: In my school, the philosophy class tends to go very quickly through many philosophers and the students are expected to remember tons of data about each one. They don't actually end up applying it themselves. No critical thinking bonus. **So what works?** Project-based learning combined with problem-based learning. Problem solving requires critical thinking. You have to analyze the problem, invent a solution, evaluate and critique it, and then execute it. Making that a project transforms it into a real exercise. Doing the project in groups teaches students to collaborate and criticize each other while being open to other people's ideas. Of course, the teacher needs to guide them in this direction too. Above all, you give the students freedom to explore, come up with their own ideas, and work freely. *This* is the closest thing to a real-life job experience. **Why aren't we doing that then?** Two words: Tests and Time. So much standardized testing means we teach for the test. That ends up being a lot of memorization and very little real-world application. Time is another issue. Common Core and state requirements grow over the years to force teachers to cram a lot of info into the year. There's pressure to "finish the curriculum." Essentially, we aren't letting teachers be creative in the first place. How can the students have those opportunities when the teachers are tied down? Stop standardized testing. Cull some items out of the curriculum. End the memorization method and give students problems to solve in groups. Logic and Philosophy are nice, but if you put those subjects into this system, it will change absolutely nothing.### Human: I agree that memorization is a problem, and I don't doubt that the classes you took were only marginally helpful, but both of those points seem like they are arguing a subject that is independent of OP's. I think there is an effective way to teach skepticism, debate, and logic at several age levels, and that the population would greatly benefit from having these skills. It would affect their judgment in politics, academia, work, and so on. But realistically, I understand that the current schooling system would minimize the benefits of such a program.### Assistant: Thing is, I don't directly oppose OP's view, at least not theoretically. What I'm arguing is two things: (A): You can teach critical thinking in any course; and (B): Adding philosophy/logic to the current system would not be effective. I'll add (C): How do you fit it in? What do you take out? The arts and PE are already stripped bare. *Those* I would argue spur much more creativity and thus critical thinking. The two skills are extremely intertwined. I'd rather expand music, theater, or dance programs than add logic and philosophy when I know they're going to end up boring. In the right system, I'd love these courses. In the current one, it's a waste of time and resources. You already have courses that would produce the type of free thinking person that OP wants. To OP: Maybe for you logic and philosophy opened your mind a great deal. I loved my philosophy teacher in college. I whooped Logic's ass and loved it. I'm naturally the kind of person that adores those courses. Problem is they're dense and boring to many people. The arts will stir up far more enthusiasm among the majority of students, making them more useful.### Human: I'm not sure free thinking and creativity are the goal of teaching logic/argument skills. Rather, the "open mindedness" that OP cites is the result of analyzing an opposing viewpoint and finding that it is in fact a good argument, thus changing your viewpoint based on rationality (rather than allegiance, emotion, or just ignorance). It is the ability to accept a rational argument even if it is against your current stance. Again, I agree it would be difficult to implement a change in curriculum of *any kind*, but not that this problem is specific the current subject matter. I also think your claims about boredom are debatable, and that the current state of politics makes it very clear that people are seriously lacking in skepticism and informed criticism. I think a better alternative to adding creative classes would be to reduce homework and allow students to take after school programs instead.### Assistant: The title here is related to complex jobs and a more educated culture. > the "open mindedness" that OP cites is the result of analyzing an opposing viewpoint and finding that it is in fact a good argument And I'm proposing we can arrive at the same destination via a better route. In order for what you said to happen, you must first acknowledge two things: 1. My view may not be correct, and; 2. Another view may be better. When you engage in creative acts, especially in a group, you have to brainstorm different ways to do things. That starts to work on point #1. If other people get involved, it pushes point #2. The effect may not be immediate, but over time it works. Arts like dance and theater as well as sports teach a healthy dose of humility and improve analysis too. Think about the coach telling the player what he did wrong and how to fix it. Or examining 15 different paintings in an art class. And my point regarding teaching methods still holds true. If you put this class into this system, it's not going to have the effect that OP wants. > I think a better alternative to adding creative classes would be to reduce homework and allow students to take after school programs instead. Here you're 100% correct. Homework is only useful up to 1.5 hours or so. Any more than that and the brain just gets tired.### Human: I see what you're saying, and I think part of the problem is a lack of clarity in OP's opening statement. My original interpretation was that he wants to establish a rigorous framework for approaching ideas and claims presented by others. While creativity can help craft new ideas, I don't think it would be as directly helpful towards providing a means of carefully considering already existing ideas/evidence. However, upon rereading his statement it does look like he is interested in improving "innovation" which is what you describe.### Assistant: So on this point... > I don't think [creativity] would be as directly helpful towards providing a means of carefully considering already existing ideas/evidence. I've read a lot of stuff from Ken Robinson and he makes good points about the relationship between critical thinking and creativity. Both require you to go outside of normal boundaries. Critical thinking is often manifest as asking questions. Like "What if this is bullshit?" or "What if a paperclip were made of diamonds?" The second example is a much more creative one, but that's precisely the point. Creativity is really just your brain examining some abstract scenarios and looking at things from a different perspective. And it *can* be trained by doing more problem-solving in class and freeing students up to come up with their *own* answers to problems instead of just making sure they fill in the right bubble with the *only* correct answer. Our current system is like a funnel. Bunch of information comes in, and a tiny stream pours out. What we need is a garden hose head that sprays it out everywhere.

### Human: CMV: I believe The 'swastika' deserves respect and clarification as a symbol, as a significant part of the human population, viz the Hindus, hold this symbol sacred. I feel this is essential to prevent misunderstandings and prejudice...CMV, I guess.### Assistant: When in Rome... In large parts of the world that were involved in WWII, the swastika is a reminder of the atrocities and oppression of the Nazis. So to them, it's taboo, not because of the religion it's related with, but the history of those that have used it (perversely or not). I believe this is reasonable, and as a member of Western society, this view favored by the majority should be respected. Likewise, if you go to somewhere like Japan (this is my only experience with the swastik), it is perfectly acceptable, and you see it denoting the location of temples on maps, and such - there it would not elicit outrage.### Human: I agree...but in today's world, no one is in Rome...In any decently large workplace, or an organization, you can safely bet that there is atleast one individual from every ethnic group working there. As such, it is important to know stuff! I am not saying that people should stop eating meat when a Hindu sits next to them crying *freedom of religion*, I am saying people should not prejudice something a Hindu believes in, because it is a slippery slope from then, especially considering how ignorant some people choose to be regarding foreign aspects and views of humanity.### Assistant: It's about being considerate. I'm jewish, grew up in Israel. Many of my family were murdered by the Nazi. So for me, the Swastika has a very clear connotation. And while I am intellectually aware of ancient use of the symbol in India, emotionally it signifies something very different. At the end of the day it is a matter of context and consideration. If I were to go on a trip in India, and I see that symbol used in its original context - no problem (it will actually zing a little, but no harm). But if I see it in a Western context, my emotional reaction would be very different. I would very definitely feel unpleasant. It is your decision whether you wish to take my discomfort into account when conducting yourself. For myself - I usually try to avoid offending people, if the price isn't too high.### Human: ∆ Because Ive never interacted with a direct sufferer of the consequences of Nazi genocide. Delta for reminding me how you guys are as important a part of modern society as us guys, and also for making sure I keep in mind that there may be legit victims around me who will unintentionally suffer horrible memories if I choose to casually use the symbol as I ordinarily use it### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/shaim2. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/shaim2)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

### Human: I believe if you're transgendered, you should accept that people inevitably misidentifying you comes as part of the package. CMV.### Assistant: Transgendered person here! There's no doubt that it comes with the package, and it's something I've personally accepted. I may not appreciate it, and it may bite a lot - as someone who's recently ( < 6 months) come out, I've still gotten a lot of misidentification or judgement and it's to be expected. Doesn't excuse it, but it is something I've personally accepted. It's definitely okay to be uncomfortable with it, and there are of course boundaries that are set from person to person in terms of making fun of it (I laugh at jokes about it, but when it becomes bitter I straight up just make it clear), but I do realize that I can't expect everyone to just know off the bat that I don't identify as male. If I'm dressing as I identify, I can understand if people call me him or he seeing as it's still not widespread etiquette to refer to me as she or her, but if someone CONTINUES to do it even after I've explained it, then that's a different story. TL;DR: As a transgendered person, I recognize that not everyone is going to immediately refer to me as my preferred pronoun(s), but it's definitely something that does need to change.### Human: How are we supposed to know what you prefer, before you tell us?### Assistant: Exactly what I mean, yeah. That being said if it's clear that someone's dressed as a woman, refer to them as female, or vice versa pretty much.### Human: Nope. I hang around lesbians a bit and they sure as hell would be offended if I adressed them as a male. The tomboys I mean### Assistant: But if someone's a tomboy, to what lengths do they go to appear male? And not only that, you know those people. This is where the confusion comes in. Like other people here already said, use pronouns for them as they dress and you're likely to get it right, or just ask them personally how they'd like to be addressed if it's pretty visible that someone is trans. It's not hard.### Human: I dont know every tomboy no. You miss the point. Assuminh someone is transgender because of clothing is stupid. So is assuminh they are gay or whatever. So is gong around asking every fucking one how they prefer to be treated, imho. Oops. I fucking called you by male pronoun. Fucking sorry. Hope youll survive### Assistant: Sigh. That's why I said, this is where the confusion comes in. It's unreasonable to ask everyone how they be preferred, I agree. That being said if it's visible someone's transgender, refer to them as how they identify basically. If someone's completed their transition really they're not 'trans' anymore, they're male or female, how they identify. At least, that's how I personally see it. Other trans people may not feel that way, I guess. :P And for the record, it can really fuck with a lot of people even if it's accidental. That isn't your bad, but don't make light of it because it's a very serious thing

### Human: People on food stamps can eat quite well and healthy. CMV### Assistant: > I also can go to food banks 6 times per month Your CMV isn't "People on food stamps can eat quite well and healthy." its "People on food stamps *and get free food* can eat quite well and healthy." Its a big difference. I can get free food from my relatives without the food stamps and food banks.### Human: Also, if someone else who was on food stamps read your claim and disagreed , your all too hasty generalization would quite annoy them.### Assistant: It annoys me greatly, my husband and I were able to get off of food stamps after being on them for about 3 months when he cracked his patella and was unable to work. We got about $150 in SNAP per month. Not each, this was for both of us combined. So, we ate lots of ramen and processed cheap crap because those were unfortunately the only things that would keep us fed for an entire month. OP is wrong.### Human: You ate those things because you didn't have much money *and you didn't know how to cook*. Or you didn't have time to do so, though this one is unlikely if one of you is unable to work. There's no way that you'd get more for your money with microwave meals than with rice, beans, vegetables, and cheap meat (like chicken thighs).### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: While $150 is, in no way enough, what about frozen and canned vegetables? I often buy these instead of fresh vegetables because they last longer.

### Human: I think that "In God We Trust" should be removed from American Currency. CMV### Assistant: In principle this is a very legitimate point, but when looking at the reality of our country we have much higher priorities than remaking the existing currency designs which work just fine. Isn't it more reasonable to at least wait until a new design is necessary for another reason and then simply leave it out rather than wasting time and money removing it from the current versions of bills? A new currency design brings many costs not just for the government but for ATMs, vending machines, and many other pieces of infrastructure in the country. It should not be done just for an aesthetic difference. This is assuming a redesign is ever necessary. If physical dollars are slowly being replaced by debit, credit, and prepaid cards of various sorts should we really care about it? In a decade or so this will probably be akin to arguing about changing the design of the penny.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That will never happen. It will be viewed as an infringement of privacy that every single purchase anyone makes *has* to be electronically recorded. People will always want cash money for privacy, ease of use, and minor transactions.### Human: There's already an example of this happening - bitcoin. Whether it grows or fails, it shows that there can be possible alternatives to physical money that embody anonymity and ease of use.### Assistant: It's easier to use than other cards, but no where near as easy as paper money.

### Human: CMV: It's perfectly fine to stereotype someone based on a statistical inference EVEN if that statistic is heavily correlated with skin color.### Assistant: > two African American gentlemen approach me with hoodies and pants sagging. This has much less to do with their race than what they are wearing. If two black people were walking past you wearing business suits, you'd probably not be at all intimidated. Or maybe you would, but that would be totally racist. People choose what they wear, or whether to get neck tattoos, and so forth, so it's OK to judge them by that. It's racist to judge them based on their race.### Human: What about two white people wearing hoodies? I'd bet it's a combination. Usually what you're wearing helps confirm/deny potential threats, which were determined by statistics like op provided. The op's analysis was done based on race, yet it's not racist (intending harm to a race), but race-related. Then, talking about the clothing he introduced common sense, not some key factor that should be primarily associated with his fear of those two individuals.### Assistant: It's more than just the hoodies. If everything was the same besides the skin color, yes, I'd be scared of white guys, too. Hoodies, saggy pants, tattoos, facial expression, muscles... It's more about belonging to a certain subculture than having a certain skin color. I'd be afraid of someone who looked like Eminem.### Human: > with hoodies and pants sagging. No it's not, that's all that's in the situation. Of course, if they were tattoo'd, muscled, facial expressions that indicate danger, then I would fear for my life. But we're talking about simply about two black men who could fit the archetype of a thug. Like I said, it's common sense to a point, but even if there was only hoodies and pants sagging, I would look twice, because black people are more often associated with crime, *and* there's enough evidence to lead me to believe that they could fit the role. Pretty much, the point is there is a lot more things a white person has to do to make me fear of getting mugged on the street than a black person, because statistics show that crime is definitely more prevalent among black people. Just take a walk around Chicago and you quickly learn that the statistics have backing and not just trying to excel an agenda or be racist at all.### Assistant: The first part of what you just said is exactly what I said. The clothing counts, and the clothing would make any other race threatening, too. My point was that it's not the skin color that counts. It's the clothing and demeanor, which indicates what subculture they're from. A black guy in a bow tie is not threatening. A white guy in baggy pants with tattoos and such *is* threatening. I think the clothes are more important than skin color. In average clothes, maybe I'd be more afraid of a black guy, but I'm not sure I'd be afraid of any race in normal clothing. Most people aren't criminals.### Human: As a white man I can't imagine being afraid of any white person regardless of what they are wearing.### Assistant: That's not really much of an argument. You're just stating the capabilities of your imagination. What does that have to do with anything?### Human: I'm not arguing or trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying I'm not afraid of white people.### Assistant: I believe that'd qualify as spam in this subreddit.### Human: The statistics themselves or the way I presented it?### Assistant: This is why: > I'm not arguing or trying to convince you of anything I think if you're not arguing/trying to convince, you're spamming. There's room for observation and opinion, but if they're not used to argue (or an aside to an argument) then it would count as spam.### Human: I thought that top level comment had to be arguments.### Assistant: No, top level comments have to arguments *against* OP. The rest can be arguments for whichever side. There's a rule against "low effort comments", like jokes, that seems to be directed at eliminating spam. When I read the more detailed version of the rule, it seems to suggest that all comments must be an argument. But the point of this subreddit is to argue and stay on topic.

### Human: CMV: I believe that the Wilhelm scream should never be used in movies again.### Assistant: As an audio engineer I cannot agree with this. The scream is merely one of a few hundred screams you are likely to be hearing again and again. I hear the same explosions, the same vehicle sounds, the same door close sounds, the same whooshes, swooshes and sword clashes constantly. It is just that the wilhelm scream is something that you picked up on. All sounds are recycled, almost nothing is used from on set captured sound anymore, even in low budget stuff. Sorry to ruin the movie magic...### Human: I've never been good at noticing sounds being used over again, but one instance makes me crazy. The crying baby in Lost. They use the exact same cry, which I think is pretty distinctive, over and over.### Assistant: You might have noticed frogs that go ''ribbit'' ... apparently there is only one species of frog which makes that sound but it turns up in movies all over the place.### Human: Also that "hawk" sound (kinda sounds like "Skreeeaaaaaaw") - not actually a hawk...### Assistant: And the cougar/mountain lion roar.

### Human: CMV: I think Islam is an inherently violent and sexist religion, and reading a list of countries with muslim majority is like a reading a list of the worst places to live on Earth.### Assistant: If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country and sort by "%christian" or "%catholic," you find a bunch of third-world countries with low scores on metrics like Human Development Index near the top of the list too. Contrast [this map of the world color-coded by concentration of christians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christians_distribution.png) with [this map of the world color coded by HDI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg). Nothing about the only evidence you provided is unique to Islam - highly religious places tend to be poor (partially because that's where missionaries target), and poor places tend to be highly religious. Poor places also tend to be shitty places to live. >They refuse to assimilate, and the first thing they do after fleeing their war torn muslim country is to try and instill sharia law and muslim values in the peaceful country they fled to! This is unsupported by the facts. Very few Muslim emigrants to non-Muslim countries have any interest in enacting sharia law in the countries the emigrate to.### Human: > If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country and sort by "%christian" or "%catholic," you find a bunch of third-world countries with low scores on metrics like Human Development Index near the top of the list too. Contrast this map of the world color-coded by concentration of christians with this map of the world color coded by HDI. Nothing about the only evidence you provided is unique to Islam - highly religious places tend to be poor (partially because that's where missionaries target), and poor places tend to be highly religious. Poor places also tend to be shitty places to live. I agree with this point entirely, but I don't think that it necessarily counters OP's point that Islam is an inherently violent and sexist religion. I don't feel that OP has provided the best possible argument for this, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here. > This is unsupported by the facts. Very few Muslim emigrants to non-Muslim countries have any interest in enacting sharia law in the countries the emigrate to. I'm inclined to agree, but there are cases of Muslim immigrants advocating for the application of Sharia at least within their communities within the countries they immigrate to, such as in the Netherlands. Are there studies on this phenomenon that you are aware of? How do you feel it would be best to evaluate political Islamism among Muslim immigrant populations?### Assistant: > I agree with this point entirely, but I don't think that it necessarily counters OP's point that Islam is an inherently violent and sexist religion. I don't feel that OP has provided the best possible argument for this, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here. It doesn't. What it does counter is OP's claim is that some unique property or combination of properties of Islam is responsible for majority-muslim countries being shitty places to live. >I'm inclined to agree, but there are cases of Muslim immigrants advocating for the application of Sharia at least within their communities within the countries they immigrate to, such as in the Netherlands. Are there studies on this phenomenon that you are aware of? How do you feel it would be best to evaluate political Islamism among Muslim immigrant populations? I don't have any stats, but the existence of vocal emigrants who would like Sharia law implemented in their new countries of residence is not in any way evidence of that viewpoint being widespread or popular. Edit: I did some research, and the only info I could find that was from any mainstream source was [this](http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/), which does not mention support for Sharia law specifically, but does contradict the notion that Muslim immigrants tend to be extremists or fundamentalists.### Human: Some figures for british muslims here http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/### Assistant: Can you link to the original poll or a comprehensive breakdown of all questions asked and the answers given? Because I'm not going to take a repost of a National Review summation of the poll at face value.

### Human: CMV: Text posts should count towards a Reddit user's comment Karma### Assistant: > Yet we do not award those who post a question, or a joke, or a topic that spurs discussion and interest. This seems like a meaningless distinction. Here are some sample text-only posts that would receive near unanimous approval on reddit and gather tens of thousands of points: * Trump is an idiot * Feel the BERN! * Snowden is a hero * Does anyone like that new Halo game? It was to discourage people just pandering to the audience that the admins removed karma from text posts many years ago. [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6p5ef/sorry_karmawhores_no_more_karma_for_selfposts/) and some [more](https://www.reddit.com/comments/tmja9/self_posts_get_no_karma_even_though_99_of_the/) [discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/3ii053/why_isnt_there_a_karma_for_text_posts/).### Human: But you can still just make a post titled "upvote if you like Bernie Sanders and bacon" and include a link to a picture of bacon and get massive amouts of karma in theory. However, almost no serious subreddit allows such shitposts and simply removes them. Why would it be different with text posts? If you post in a circlejerky subreddit you will get updoots regardless of post type. /r/circlejerk for example regularly disables image/link posts and yet the text shitposts still get tens of thousands of upvotes. Circlejerkers will circlejerk and shit posters will shitpost anyways, so there is no reason to punish people who make quality text posts...### Assistant: I think it has to do with reducing the amount of karma whoring. There's no way to completely eliminate it since people love their imaginary internet points. This reduces the amount of work for the moderators and basically makes reddit better than otherwise. It isn't perfect and I'd be the first person to admit that. I think this also answers /u/ITagEveryone's question. By keeping that stuff mostly in /r/AdviceAnimals it frees up other subs from meaningless text posts.### Human: I am pretty sure that not giving karma for text posts does not reduce the amout of karma whoring or the work for the mods at all. It definitely decreases the amount of text post shitposting but people will then just shitpost and attach an image to it. So it increases the image based shitposts... Filtering text based shitposts is a lot easier since you can simply use a script which automatically removes identical posts for example. Everything else needs to be filtered manually anyways.### Assistant: > I am pretty sure that not giving karma for text posts does not reduce the amout of karma whoring or the work for the mods at all. >> It definitely decreases the amount of text post shitposting but people will then just shitpost and attach an image to it. So it increases the image based shitposts During my time on reddit, I've also made a couple of memes. Each time I had to go to a website, select an image, type some text and then copy and paste the imgur link into a link post. Each of those steps is an additional barrier that only the most dedicated shitposters are willing to go through just for karma. On the other hand, typing a couple sentences or "I LOVE BACON!" takes less than 30 seconds. Shitposts are shitposts, but making it harder to post shit is a good thing, in my opinion. > Filtering text based shitposts is a lot easier since you can simply use a script which automatically removes identical posts for example. Everything else needs to be filtered manually anyways. That depends on the subreddit, doesn't it? Some subs are much more easy-going than others. Posting to /r/AdviceAnimals is a piece of cake while posting to /r/polandball takes a lot of work.

### Human: CMV: No amount of bombing, troops, or war in general will defeat ISIS or terrorism. It's time to rethink the problem.### Assistant: Just a technicality, but since we are capable of bombing the entire planet back to the stone age, there is certainly an amount of bombing that would fix terrorism.### Human: i think by fix terrorism OP meant less terror, not whatever you mean here.### Assistant: Extinction### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]### Human: [removed]### Assistant: [removed]### Human: Sorry outdated_references, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 5\. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, 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=outdated_references+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3x4psm/cmv_no_amount_of_bombing_troops_or_war_in_general/cy2g7ld\))

### Human: CMV: The idea of an election integrity/voter fraud commission is not a bad one, and necessary to (dis)prove claims of voter fraud.### Assistant: >This claim may or may not be bonkers, but it is worth investigating to finally settle the argument of whether or not voter fraud is a significant event. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the investigation would actually settle the argument, because [illegal voter fraud has been investigated many times and the results always come back that it is extremely rare](https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/resources-voter-fraud-claims). Why waste time and money on an issue that shows every indication that is *isn't* an issue, likely won't convince anyone, and offers a significant security risk at a high (taxpayer funded) price?### Human: >likely won't convince anyone If we assume that Trump's administration (the most anti-immigration/voter fraud accusing administration in recent history) went through with this and it came out that they found no significant voter fraud, that would be the biggest nail in the coffin for the Republican party's argument that it exists.### Assistant: Trump has a history of ignoring any results that aren't in line with his claims. Remember birtherism? He and his most ardent supporters weren't persuaded at all by the officials authenticating it, nor by the long form revelation. [As late as August 2016](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446), "Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship." This is even after Trump's campaign said they don't question it. Trump never apologized for it or explained all the comments he made about his private investigations, he just moved on and said he "doesn't want to talk about it any more." The truth simply *doesn't matter* to some people when the issue becomes partisan enough or the egos large enough. If all of those other studies and investigations into illegal voting fraud didn't convince them, Trump's own investigation won't either. At best it will simply stop being a talking point until the next time elections come up, and then it'll be "voting fraud totally happened before, and it's happening again!"### Human: Yeah you're probably right about that. Δέλτα !delta### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AurelianoTampa ([38∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AurelianoTampa)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [​](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "AurelianoTampa" } DB3PARAMSEND)

### Human: CMV: Bernie Sanders is at least as electable as Hillary Clinton.### Assistant: Black voters were key to Obama's election and strongly support Clinton as well. But black democrats tend to be less liberal than their white counterparts, and Sanders will almost certainly do less well with black voters than Clinton. [Right now he has little support among black voters](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-lags-hillary-clinton-in-introducing-himself-to-black-voters.html). That might change, but that's a big hill to climb. He will also lose support from democrats and independents who are socially liberal but more pro-business. Obama attracted those voters and Clinton would too, but I don't think Sanders would. Similarly, some wealthy donors will likely be repelled by Sanders' economic views, hurting his campaign financially.### Human: It shouldn't matter if Bernie is black or white. His record shows, very clearly, that he has done more in favor of the black community than Hillary Clinton ever has.### Assistant: Except he doesn't have the "Clinton" name, which is very favorably remembered among the black voter group.### Human: I'd like to think the black community is smart enough not to vote for a candidate based on what her husband did 20 years ago. What has hilldog done herself that's so great?### Assistant: > I'd like to think the black community is smart enough not to vote for a candidate based on what her husband did 20 years ago. Black, white, whatever, never underestimate the stupidity of the majority. How many people do you think will vote for/against Jeb because they like or didn't like George?

### Human: CMV: If wanting "extras" at Sandwitchshops/Restaurants costs you more money, then unwanted ingredients should cost you less.### Assistant: The people who assemble burgers and sandwiches are trained to be as fast as possible at completing a certain pattern. Part of the cost of making any changes is that it forces a worker to break their pattern and stop to consider how it's done. Any change in the established balance can slow things down for a restaurant and lead to an actual loss at high traffic times.### Human: I refuse to believe that my plain sandwich takes more work than one with all of the toppings. Small changes, I get. Double check to make sure you did everything but tomatoes. But nothing at all is easier than the normal pattern. Edit: Guys, I understand how small changes like extra pickles or no tomatoes make the order more complex, my entire point is just ordering a plain sandwich/burger can't possibly take more time than is lost due to having to double check. Muscle memory is one thing, but you literally don't even have to get to that point. Just "plain".### Assistant: Nothing at all could mean "I'm allergic to these ingredients" or "I have religious restrictions". That might require changing gloves or cleaning the station. Wrapping a half filled sandwich takes a different number of twists of the wrapping paper. It makes you pause to double check whether " nothing " meant no changes or no toppings or even no bun at all (such as when I order a plain cooked patty for my dog - and onions and garnish can be poisonous to dogs). You might think your order is simple but anything that forces people out of a routine slows then down.### Human: None of that is in there. I just order "plain" when I go through the drivethrough. None of that could reasonably be implied in "plain". There's a button for it, I see it come up on the order screen. "Plain". Even that slight pause to double check still takes a fraction of a second, and then you literally just plop the meat on the bun. It might slow it down for a second, but I still don't believe "double checking" takes more time than putting together the whole sandwich. I understand how, often times, a smaller order means more work, I work in a tux store and our system has default orders that can really get complicated for me to predict or put together when they remove parts of it. That said, it's always going to be less work and time to just order a jacket than to put together the whole order. Even if a little extra time is added, it still saves time overall.### Assistant: The problem is- different people have different meanings of plain. There is always that customer that means- no LTPO. And the other customer meant no LTPO and no Sauce. While you may have the right of it, hundreds of other people do not. The person making the sandwich doesn't know what type of person you are.

### Human: CMV: Professional sports are completely trivial and people have no right to get as emotionally invested as they do.### Assistant: For the most part, I agree that professional sports are trivial. But "no right to get as emotionally invested"? I would argue that, generally speaking, people have a right to get as emotionally invested as they want to; they get to choose where to put their emotional energy, and nobody else has the authority or privilige to gainsay that.### Human: That's a fair point, people have a right to do whatever they want. A better way to phrase it is that they have no *reason* to be so invested.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: ∆ Some other people have made the example of books and movies and people's emotional investments in each, even in fiction. To me, that's the perfect argument, because I can totally imagine being riveted by a TV show and having someone else walk up and say "Who cares? Why does it matter what happens to them?" Even though I don't understand why people care about sports, it doesn't mean they can't.### Assistant: It's more about sticking to something through thick and thin, people are lifetime fans because it feels good to believe in something that is successful.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Flipping houses is a detrimental practice for society as a whole### Assistant: I don't think your points are necessarily wrong, but I do think that you are far overestimating the effect they can have on a housing market. Things like square footage, location, neighborhood, and school district are always going to have a larger impact on home prices than whether or not the kitchen has new cabinets. If there were people out there flipping entire neighborhoods, then I would agree with you!### Human: > If there were people out there flipping entire neighborhoods, then I would agree with you! I actually come from a town where this was very common, especially turning older homes into duplexes etc. to double revenue.### Assistant: That sounds to me like they created more housing, which would be cheaper to live in than the original house.### Human: Cheaper to live in, but not cheaper to buy. These properties become rental units for the original buyer (a separate issue.)### Assistant: If the core problem is that home ownership is inaccessible, then doesn't an increase in newly-remodeled rental units *benefit* society as a whole? If I can't buy a house -- any house at all -- I'd rather live in a nice duplex than a dumpy apartment.### Human: Yeah, I don't disagree with you here. It's just not the original argument I was working with, it's a tangent. (Doesn't CMV because it's a separate issue, but my view is already changed anyway.)

### Human: CMV: If a person is Pro-Choice then they must also oppose laws making organ donation more compulsory.### Assistant: What would it take to convince you that a dead person does not benefit from having rights?### Human: It does not matter if someone benefits from having rights.### Assistant: Then why do rights exist?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: The right to own a gun is a tremendous benefit to you in the circumstance when you want to buy a gun. You will never encounter a circumstance when you might need your organs after you're dead. It is impossible.### Human: I also do not need my money after I am dead but I would like to be able to know that it actually goes where I wanted it to go.### Assistant: Yeah, but you wouldn't want to get buried with your money. You'd have someone inherit it. Why would you want uo waste your organs when you wouldn't waste your money?### Human: Why should we respect someone's wishes as to what happens to their stuff when we don't respect their wishes as to what happens to their body?### Assistant: We should, in the form of an opt-out instead of an opt-in.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >They do not prevent women from getting abortions Yes, [they do](https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/01/new-data-shows-drop-texas-abortion-rates-after-hb-2/), which is why the [US Supreme Court struck down Texas' restrictions](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf).

### Human: CMV: I always tip 20% for restaurant service. However, if I'm paying for a large party and the tip is "included", I never add a tip on top of the included tip, even if the included tip is below 20%.### Assistant: If you think a waiter deserves 20% tip, is it really fair to tip 15% just because of the restaurant's large party policy (which is not the fault of the server)?### Human: If the restaurant thinks the server deserves 15% for a large party, who am I to argue?### Assistant: Restaurant never said you CAN'T tip more than 15%. Restaurant is just enforcing a 15% minimum. So the restaurant is only saying " server deserves **at least** 15%," they never said that 15% should be the cap. Again, why should a waiter (who you admit deserves 20%) get only 15% because of restaurant policy that the waiter does not control?### Human: Completely different culture, but is that 15% actually mandatory? I live in the UK and some restaurants have started doing this, usually about 8% for high-end establishments, but it's always discretionary. We have a specific law that ensures the service charge may be removed at the customer's request.### Assistant: It's pretty common for U.S. restaurants to include a mandatory ~15% service charge for large (=>6 people) groups. It's written on the menu, so it's not a surprise.### Human: Interesting, thank you. We have the charge printed on the menu too, but you can just request it to be removed from your bill which I think most people do.

### Human: I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for 'class' or 'income' based affirmative action. CMV.### Assistant: Sorry but before I even post a response, I need to know what you mean by "race based affirmative action." A lot of people have no clue what affirmative action actually is, so I end up offering up my whole argument and they just look at me clueless because we've accidentally been having two completely different discussions. So please, elaborate on what you believe affirmative action is and I will happily defend it based on that.### Human: Affirmative action as set by the executive order applying to workplace hiring policies. I am also thinking a lot about college admissions procedures.### Assistant: No I mean what do you think the process of affirmative action is, in regards to both workplace hiring policies and college admissions?### Human: Considering race or 'diversity goals' as part of hiring or admission. I know quotas are illegal, but companies will hire/consider someone's minority status.### Assistant: > companies will hire/consider someone's minority status. That usually isn't directly the case. Affirmative action often means they will post job openings places where minorities might notice (in addition to the usual places) and it often means they will evaluate non-traditional experiences as well as traditional academic credentials. Affirmative action isn't about giving bonus points to minorities, it is about finding the best way to evaluate applicants and realizing that traditional education and traditional tests tend to be biased a bit towards white/upper-class people whose parents went to college.### Human: Is that how it works ideally or in reality? I think I'm agreeing with some points I've been reading by others (in support of my OP) explaining that affirmative action as it is, doesn't actually achieve helping a majority of minorities, and is only aimed at middle class minorities. I think it would be *more* beneficial if, instead of focusing on race, which is one way of identifying those who've potentially been disadvantaged, we used income. I don't know enough to advocate one technique over another to achieve this purpose, but I think it would be more effective at 'equalizing society,' which is what I view the *goal* of Affirmative action. As it is, we're only helping minorities who have access to these job boards, meaning that they've already pierced a certain veil of society, (for my own benefit I will again state that it's not that I think that those middle-class minorities don't face some discrimination, nor do I think they don't deserve help anymore, I just think the goals of AA will be better achieved with a different implementation strategy)### Assistant: The reality is most places don't quite reach this ideal, but are much closer to this ideal approach than to the false stereotype of affirmative action=quotas (or bonus "points" on an application). If you re-read my brief description of affirmative action, you'll note that I don't actually say that it is primarily about race. The process I describe *does* work toward finding capable economically-disadvantaged applicants. That is my main objection to your view: affirmative action doesn't need to stop paying attention to race-based discrimination in order to acknowledge income-based disadvantages. Affirmative action isn't just about making the world a better/happier/more-equal place--it is about finding *better* ways to evaluate who will be the best person for a position, and acknowledging that previous systems of evaluation often were inadvertently discriminatory against minorities, poor people, and anyone who was *different* from the person doing the evaluating.### Human: that is very fair, I am getting caught up in a false dichotomy and I would like to thank you for pointing that out to me. I do now think they are more compatible together. I'm not quite sure how this works, but here is your ∆ I also think, and I unfortunately don't have a specific person I can thank for this, that income based systematic changes need to happen at a much earlier/basic level than affirmative action does (eg primary schooling specifically) and affirmative action initiatives may be ineffective because the poor/lower class will not be qualified enough for the positions/colleges I had in mind during the original post. It's a lot farther in our future than I originally thought/hoped :(### Assistant: > that income based systematic changes need to happen at a much earlier/basic level than affirmative action does (eg primary schooling specifically) I completely agree with you on this, and with your broader point that we need to pay more attention to the impact of poverty on education and job opportunities. The good news is, there are a lot of programs that have been shown to be very effective. The bad news is we aren't funding them. Congress has reduced funding for food stamps for kids, which will make it much harder for poor kids to actually focus during school. They've also cut other educational programs and funding to states/cities that is used for schools.

### Human: CMV: Amphetamines are raising educational standards### Assistant: Nobody else has raised the argument but there is also the consideration for the health of users. Yes, prescribed users get more benefit from the drug than it's consequences, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent. First of all, it's addictive and you can develop a dependency on it. Being dependent on a drug you won't always have access to can lead to decreases in health and cognition because of withdrawal and your desire for your next hit. It can cause sudden heart failure in those with any cardiac problems. Do you have any? Do you know you don't? Could you be developing them? Has a doctor said it'd be okay? Other side effects include serious mood swings, burning when you pee, and uneven or fast heart beat, and development of psychosis It can stunt growth in children and adolescents. Also, it's affect on the brain physically is unknown in humans. Animal studies have shown degradation of the brain and other abnormalities. There have been few studies done into human use, but some chronic users of amphetamines have serious brain abnormalities. So you have a drug, widely used, that can cause development of psychosis, heart failure, strokes, stunted growth, addiction, has serious withdrawal symptoms, and could possibly cause brain degradation. This drug is also federal schedule II. Sources: http://www.drugs.com/adderall.html And http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670101/#S9title### Human: This is a good point, that's why I said they must be managed well. With chronic use (especially if children have been taking amphetamines daily for an extended period of time), I'd be surprised if they didn't eventually experience any adverse health effects.. Not sure if that'd take place before or after they finished school, though.### Assistant: But school is essentially preparing you for work. If you can only write good computer code when you're using amphetamines, it's not like you can suddenly go into a workplace and write good code without it. If you rely on such things to pass occupation-related tests, you will either keep using it while working, or have to redevelop your work habits AFTER school, which is in my opinion a bad result. Reliance too much, like long term for work, is bad as you've said. In that sense, encouraging such habits in school forces it to move to work, and makes it chronic.### Human: Yes, I completely agree, that's why responsible usage is so important. Dependence only means that what used to make you better is now just maintaining normalcy. Edit: and my CMV doesn't concern life after school.### Assistant: What are you going to do after college? Are you just going to rework your habits to a sober lifestyle or are you going to find an employer who will deal with your work habits?### Human: OP is talking about "responsible usage", which in the case of unprescribed Adderall means something along the lines of once a month or less. In that context it seems pretty disingenuous to talk about "reworking [their] habits to a sober lifestyle".### Assistant: OP also mentioning doing cocaine, whiskey, and marijuana while writing the final paper for his course, which isn't responsible at all. [He also mentioning doing housework while high and being "more or less of an avid drug user".](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2j4j2u/cmv_amphetamines_are_raising_educational_standards/cl8czg3)He's also said that "90% of my friends/acquaintances use them either recreationally and/or for school/work.", meaning that drugs in general are an important part of his lifestyle.

### Human: CMV: Believing that all religions are equal is illogical and simply PC### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Historical actions of people of a certain faith have little if any bearing on the quality, merits, and/or teachings of the faith itself. That is unless the faith itself expressly teaches people to do evil. I do not believe any of the faiths in question explicitly teach people to do anything other than be morally good. How evil people corrupt and interpret a faith has nothing to do with this argument.### Assistant: I disagree. If the adherents of a certain faith consistently do bad things that they might not do except for their religion, and the only common factor is the religion, then the religion is obviously flawed. Just because Christianity contains an admonition to love your neighbor as yourself doesn't mean it also doesn't contain instructions to stone homosexuals. Just because Islam is a "religion of peace" doesn't mean the Quran doesn't take a rather frightening view on the slaughter of infidels. When a religious text is so contradictory in its message, there will be people who use the horrible parts to do horrible things, and the religion itself isn't an innocent bystander just because some adherents do good things in the name of their god.### Human: But historically it doesn't seem like a specific faith is the common factor for acts of radical fundamentalism. More that among disadvantaged/opressed populations radical interpretations of any faiths teachings are more common, and when different religions are more common among such disadvantaged groups those gain a reputation for violence. I think that may have been the original point of citing the example of the buddhists in Sri Lanka### Assistant: > historically it doesn't seem like a specific faith is the common factor for acts of radical fundamentalism. Just one? No. But several explicitly. For example, I really shouldn't have to remind you of the Crusades.

### Human: I believe that modern Libertarians are exchanging one master for another. CMV### Assistant: If I'm not mistaken, libertarians believe that corporations only have so much power because of government regulations that distort the free market and inhibit competition, and that in a truly free market, competition would limit the power of any individual business. Moreover, even if wealth is more concentrated, businesses or individuals wouldn't be able to infringe upon the rights of others; the government would still exist in a limited capacity to prevent private coercion, libertarians aren't anarchists.### Human: >If I'm not mistaken, libertarians believe that corporations only have so much power because of government regulations that distort the free market and inhibit competition, and that in a truly free market, competition would limit the power of any individual business. 1 - Without government, there would be no enforcement of contracts, and without enforcement of contracts, there would be no business. The closest you would be able to get is a mafia or warlord organization, but that's not business, that's feudalism. **This is where libertarianism falls apart** 2 - In a truly free market, corporations like apple with tons of cash would be able to price below margin due to the absence of anti-trust laws and, despite being less efficient and inferior to their competitors, drive those competitors out of business.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: > The competitors will be back. Really? If I saw a bunch of companies get their asses handed to them by Apple, I'd be incredibly reluctant to take them on. Who's going to invest **knowing** that Apple can just lower their prices and crush anyone in their way?### Assistant: And who benefits in this situation?### Human: The big corporations, of course. Lower prices drive out competition, and once the competition is gone, they have a monopoly and can charge as much as they please.### Assistant: Wrong. The consumer benefits. Evil Corporation has lowered prices so much that no one can possibly compete, but who is buying those goods so cheaply? The consumer. So what happens when Evil Corporation raises prices again, to gouge the consumer, to reap the profits of its evil ways? Its competition springs back up again, prices drop again, and the process continues, ad infinitum. Are you seeing what's happening here? The free market puts a functional check on any company which tries to gouge the consumer. As long as there is free competition, as long as the government is focused on protecting the property rights of Evil Corporation's competitors (rather than artificially keeping them out of the game at Evil Corporation's behest, as it is wont to do), then Evil Corporation has no alternative but to play fair. In a free market, it is simply impossible to gouge the consumer for any significant length of time. In a healthy, free market, the consumer is *always* the winner.### Human: This is interesting because you seem to be deliberately avoiding addressing the premise of my point. They lower prices to crush the competition. Now competitors DO NOT come back because they are afraid of getting crushed. You're acting like investment somehow magically will come back even after competing with Big Whatever Incorporated has been proven to be a bad idea. This is magical thinking.### Assistant: Show me one example of competitors not coming back. Just one. You can't, because it doesn't happen. Your imaginary scenario is bollocks. It's bullshit.### Human: Well, if you check back to the beginning of this little thought experiment, you'll see that it's predicated on there not being anti-trust laws. We HAVE anti-trust laws on the books and that prevents the kind of intimidation and unfair trade practices I'm talking about. Again, you simply ignored stuff that wasn't convenient to your magical thinking.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Ah, yes. Insults: the last refuge of the utterly defeated. Actually, I can now that I think of it: Major League Baseball. They have an antitrust exemption. They've never had a major competitor come along thanks to that. The NFL has had a few pop up every decade or two (WFL, USFL, XFL). They DO NOT have an antitrust exemption. So there's your example.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: LOL, dude. I love the circular reasoning. I thought you would use a *different* logical fallacy, not that one.

### Human: CMV: Snowden's leaks did not harm national security.### Assistant: >It seems that any borderline competent terrorist would know that the US is trying to spy on them through any means necessary. Clearly. But what they don't know is *how*, which means the enemy has to operate under inherent uncertainty. They may assume the US is spying on them, but they don't know *how*, and if they don't know how, then they can't very well circumvent US intelligence or mitigate its harm. Think of it like a football game. *American* football. Whenever a team is on defense, it's obviously aware that the offense is going to try and score by any means possible. They just don't know what strategy the offense is going play. Now, imagine if the defense had the offensive team's playbook, or a whistleblowing assistant coach got on the PA system and announced whatever play the offense was gonna make. That would probably not bode well for the offense, right? Pardon my admittedly horrible knowledge of the game. But, I hope I made my point.### Human: But it seems that what was revealed basically indicates that the US Gov is spying on wireless communications. Terrorists already knew that. I don't see how any of the specifics change the way they would approach their activities.### Assistant: Yeah, but they didn't know *how* the US was spying on their communications and the extent of its capabilities. It was an unknown and, *at the very least*, that *unknown* would create an aura of uncertainty. It's like a one of those generic mafia films, where the mobsters can never be sure whether or not their phones are tapped or their homes are bugged. It creates a certain level of paranoia. I mean, did the cops bust your jewelry heist 'cuz they tapped your phone? Was it just poor planning? Was there a mole? Obviously, any movie mobster is gonna operate under the *assumption* that his phone is bugged, but he can't no for sure until its too late. Unless he has a mole or something. But, you know, whatever.### Human: >Yeah, but they didn't know how the US was spying on their communications and the extent of its capabilities. What specifics changed this?### Assistant: One of the disclosures include the NSA intercepting computer shipments to install spyware. Before terrorists would operate under the assumption that their newly purchased laptops are clean. Now, they might reinstall their OS to make sure everything is clean. Any possibility of intercepting terrorist plots via this program is now dead. But that's just a hypothetical situation.### Human: It was certainly suspected that the NSA did this for a long time, any informed terrorist would have at least suspected the possibility. The Chinese also do it, though there's hasn't been a Chinese Snowden to provide proof yet.

### Human: CMV: Net Neutrality is a red herring to distract from the deeper, more fundamental issue of monopolies in the ISP business.### Assistant: It's not a red herring - it's the problem that utilities are a naturally monopolistic business. Anything that involves building a permanent physical connection to a bunch of homes will tend to be a monopoly. It's something where there isn't really a good answer. The fact of a duopoly in communications is an historical accident that telephone and cable tv used to be separate services, so both companies built infrastructure to the home. The idea of net neutrality is to try regulating ISPs like other utilities such as electric or water, where they get a monopoly, but are subject to strict rules. It's imperfect, but the problem of utilities is a genuine economic problem.### Human: >The idea of net neutrality is to try regulating ISPs like other utilities such as electric or water, where they get a monopoly, but are subject to strict rules. I have literally never heard "net neutrality" described this way before. Alright, I'm game, what would the rules be?### Assistant: The rules would be the "common carrier" standard, which goes back a long way. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Common_carrier) and [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications).### Human: Okay... those rules would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the current dispute between the ISPs and Netflix. This isn't about "provider", it's about protocol. It's about streaming video and the way Netflix (and other providers) implements it. Common carrier rules wouldn't prevent the "pay to peer" or the caching requirements of the ISPs because that's about VOLUME of traffic, not whose providing it.### Assistant: Common carrier status would give the FCC the authority to promulgate net neutrality regulations. The reason we're having this debate is the FCC promulgated regulations for net neutrality under the information services standard, which the DC Circuit overturned in [Verizon v. FCC](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17615388436478528143&q=11-1355&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33)### Human: You're just avoiding the question. You threw out common carrier as a red herring. What SPECIFIC RULES do you want to implement? I don't care if you call them "net neutrality" or what you call them.### Assistant: I want to implement the specific rules the DC circuit overturned in Verizon v. FCC. [47 CFR 8](http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-8) >§ 8.3 Transparency. >A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. >§ 8.5 No blocking. >(a) A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. >(b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management. >§ 8.7 No unreasonable discrimination. >A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.### Human: § 8.3 Transparency. > shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services ... for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. This is reasonable and something the ISPs already do. > sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services This is completely unreasonable. It would require the ISPs to train everyone in the USA in network engineering. Or they don't actually have to be informed and it means nothing. Can you give examples of how this rule would work in practice or change the market in any way? § 8.5 No blocking. > subject to reasonable network management. § 8.7 No unreasonable discrimination. > Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination. The problem here is that the ISPs would call everything they are doing "reasonable network management". Again, can you give examples of how this rule would work in practice or change the market in any way?### Assistant: >This is reasonable and something the ISPs already do. So what are the commercial terms of the Netflix/Verizon peerage agreement? They're secret. This would make such agreements public. It would also require the same terms for everyone. So Hulu can't get a preferential deal with Verizon for peerage over Netflix because Hulu is owned by companies who do business with Verizon on the TV side. And what are Verizon's traffic shaping protocols? They're not public currently, this would make them be public. >It would require the ISPs to train everyone in the USA in network engineering. Or they don't actually have to be informed and it means nothing. It's not meaningless. Even if you are trained in network engineering, you can't necessarily know how your ISP would shape your traffic. This requires the information be out there so that consumers *could* make informed choices. And consumers could read articles like "Verizon's network policies are better/worse for you than Comcast's; here's why." >The problem here is that the ISPs would call everything they are doing "reasonable network management". >Again, can you give examples of how this rule would work in practice or change the market in any way? It would require rules that treat all data users pretty much equally. For example, ISPs have been giving priority to requests for speed testing sites to trick their end users into thinking they're getting better service than they actually are. No judge would consider that reasonable management. Reasonableness would depend on consistent application of rules for network management. Edit to add: Reasonableness is a standard that comes up all the time in the law. It would be handled by an administrative law judge trained in network engineering within the FCC, whose decision would be reviewable de novo by a federal district judge. What is reasonable in a particular case would be decided by the judge/appeals court, and then become precedent on future decisions. Courts do this all the time.### Human: > So what are the commercial terms of the Netflix/Verizon peerage agreement? They're secret. This would make such agreements public. No it wouldn't. That's not "information sufficient for consumers". I don't interpret that rule to mean they must make all their contracts public. I assume it's talking about agreements between the ISP and the consumer. But even if you're correct, I'm not sure that very many people are going to read those peering agreements. > It would also require the same terms for everyone. Those rules don't say anything about that. They say that the ISP can't "discriminate" against traffic. Selling services to company A is not discrimination against company B. > So Hulu can't get a preferential deal with Verizon for peerage over Netflix because Hulu is owned by companies who do business with Verizon on the TV side. They absolutely can. The rules don't say anything about conflict of interest. My reading of these rules is that the ISPs can sign any sort of peering or hosting agreement that they want, they just might have to disclose part of it. These rules don't block pay-to-peer, different prices for pay-to-peer, hosting, different prices for hosting, etc. WHICH IS THE ISSUE HERE. Netflix doesn't want to pay for peering or hosting. These rules will not require the ISPs to give Netflix free stuff. > And what are Verizon's traffic shaping protocols? They're not public currently, this would make them be public. They're well-known to people in the industry. It's not very exciting (a lot of stuff to do with VoIP). And I would fight that disclosure tooth and nail if I was an ISP. Disclosing the configuration of network gear is right out. It's an incredible burden and a guidebook for hackers. But here's one example of why the don't want to disclose: Comcast (and I know that other ISPs do this too) mirrors the Pirate Bay and most of the popular Bittorrent trackers, this combined with routing stuff, tends to point people using torrents to other users in the cable network (which the torrent protocol would mostly do naturally anyway) and are thereby actually accelerating torrent traffic. The reason for this is to reduce load on their uplinks. (Bittorrent uses a lot of obfuscation, ISPs have mostly given up on trying to block it) This basically solved the "bittorrent problem" for Comcast, which is why there is focus of Netflix (the biggest consumer, bt is #2). Google pays a ton of money to the ISPs to host servers for YouTube, so that's not a problem. Comcast believes (and they have court rulings to back up) that this is "reasonable network management". I don't think Hollywood would feel the same and forcing the ISPs to disclose would probably force them to abandon this scheme. > And consumers could read articles like "Verizon's network policies are better/worse for you than Comcast's; here's why." I think you'd find that those policies were virtually identical, like subscription agreements now. And I don't see anyone really analyzing those and posting similar articles. > For example, ISPs have been giving priority to requests for speed testing sites to trick their end users into thinking they're getting better service than they actually are. No they haven't, a lot of them host test servers. And "speed tests" are bullshit. They just test your connection to one particular server, it's meaningless. But people think they are important so they're gaming the metric by hosting the servers, getting them as close to the end user as possible (one hop, ideally). And probably allocating them more bandwidth so users don't get timeout either. Fact: There is no such thing as a generic internet "speed test". It simply doesn't take into account how networks work. I've got a 100 mbps cable modem. I'm only very rarely going to get 100 mbps download speeds from any site because I'm throttled **SERVER-SIDE**. And I need to stress that VERY few sites on the internet would sustain 100 mbps download speeds. The only examples I have ever heard of are dedicated private servers with their own high-bandwith fiber connections (and only ONE user). Not Download.com. In fact, because of the way cable networks work, you're always going to have congestion at the uplinks. The only way to get to 100 mbps for most services is to host with the ISPs, which is something you seem to oppose. It's mostly P2P that can take advantage of that 100 mbps. This is not Grande's (my ISP) fault. And the ISPs are working on content-neutral hosting solutions / CDNs. The video providers don't like it and prefer their own proprietary services because they want to hurt their competitors. http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2011/06/telco-and-carriers-forming-new-federated-cdn-group-called-ocx-operator-carrier-exchange.html http://www.edgecast.com/solutions/opencdn/ > No judge would consider that reasonable management. What's unreasonable about it? How does it hurt consumers in any way? > It would be handled by an administrative law judge trained in network engineering within the FCC, Can you name this person? I seriously doubt that there are any administrative law judges trained in network engineering in existence, let alone working for the FCC. I stand by my statement that these rules don't do much of anything. The thing I don't like about the current "net neutrality" debate is that you're turning a fight between massive corporations over MONEY into a civil rights issue. That's ridiculous. You might notice something: Google pays to host, Microsoft pays to host, Sony pays to host, Hulu pays to host, Twitch.tv pays to host, etc. This is what everyone with high-bandwidth applications EXCEPT Netflix is doing.

### Human: CMV: The inability to give legal consent by the highly intoxicated should be applied throughout the entirety of the law.### Assistant: There is a difference between being able to consent and being able to be held accountable. Consent means you are giving someone else something. This means that being incapacitated when giving consent allows someone to exploit you. That is why incapacitation precludes consent. Meanwhile, any actions your perform unto others while incapacitated cannot (generally) be exploited. Moreover, those on the receiving end of these actions are the ones at risk. Therefore, they require the protection of you being bound by the law. Consider replacing the word 'consent' with 'giving permission'.### Human: What about scenario C: While you are drunk a friend asks to borrow your car to use in a bank robbery and you accept. Would you then be guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery or would you being drunk mean you can't legally be held responsible for making that decision?### Assistant: If he didn't mention it was for a bank robbery then I'm pretty sure you're innocent there, drunk or not. Assuming he did, I'm really interested to know if his drunkenness justifies it.### Human: Probably won't be on the hook for the robbery, but if someone ends up dead during the robbery (even if an officer is the one that does the shooting) you might be doing some jail time. Felony Murder is a wacky law: http://www.thenation.com/article/why-florida-man-facing-life-prison-lending-out-his-car-and-going-sleep/### Assistant: That's terrible, thanks for the link.

### Human: CMV: Frequent unannounced fire drills are no different than the story of the boy who cried wolf, and actually make people less safe.### Assistant: [Rick Rescorla](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla#September_11.2C_2001) is credited with saving almost 3,000 people during 9/11 because of his evacuation drills. Via [The New Yorker...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/11/the-real-heroes-are-dead) >The drill was practiced twice a year. A few people made fun of it and resisted, but Rescorla tolerated no dissent, demanding military precision and insisting on a clearly defined command system. As he told Hill, he was simply following the “Eight ‘P’s,” a mnemonic that had been drummed into them in the military: “Proper prior planning and preparation prevents piss-poor performance.” [The Daily Mail claims he ran drills four times a year](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033919/Twin-Towers-hero-predicted-terror-attacks-led-2-700-safety--died-went-look-stragglers.html) The actual drills might be nonsense but the simple fact they knew where the emergency exits were, knew how to get out of the building, and knew who to listen to saved almost all of Morgan Stanley's employees.### Human: From the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that the important part wasn't necessarily the drills themselves, but that Rick Rescorla ignored orders from the intercom to stay put, and instead, barked orders from his bullhorn and sang songs to keep people calm. The dude clearly stepped up and was a leader, and it's great that he had a plan in place and that he was ready to give orders about executing it. It seems like the drills themselves wouldn't have helped all that much if Rick hadn't been such a hero or had been absent that day. In fact it seems like the fact that the default reaction of so many people without Rick stepping in was to stay at their desks when alarms started going off actually affirms my points.### Assistant: I guess the message here is that drills only work if people are forced to take them seriously by someone higher up. They need to be coerced and herded like cats or they'll sit around and end up dead. The failure isn't in the drill, it's in the person in charge of the drill for not forcing everyone to follow the rules in a timely manner. If you let slack off university professors just half ass drills, people die. If you have someone who demands precision and obedience, less people may die. I can't fault the drills for making people less safe. I fault those in charge of administering the drills and allowing the people they're supposed to be evacuating not take it seriously.### Human: I could be wrong but I believe one of OP's points is that kids who grow up and experience dozens of false alarms are primed to be half-assed adults who half ass drills that they are in charge of### Assistant: One time they were doing renovations or repairs at my elementary school and for some reason the fire alarm kept going off. Either it was broken or they were accidentally hitting it or something. I don't remember. What I do remember is the principal coming on the announcements and telling us to ignore them. Something along the lines of "It keeps going off, so just ignore it today."

### Human: CMV: It is ridiculously harder to socialize in life if you don't drink alcohol### Assistant: One of my friends in gradschool was a recovering/relapsing alcoholic. And when she kind of came out with that information we did realize exactly how much of our faculty included drinking. Our end of term parties were held at pubs. We're all 22+ so there was certainly alcohol. We had karaoke nights. We went to the bar after a rough lecture. One memorable afternoon somebody snuck a mickey into the most notoriously awful class of the year. In the summer there were barbecues with beer and picnics in the park with wine. We drank. A lot. But we also made the attempt to do non-alcoholic things. We had sober dinner parties and played Cards Against Humanity. We had board game hour between lectures. We went to movies. They did yoga classes and coffee dates. And when that person did join us at the bar after class she'd just order a coke and we'd all split some nachos. Nobody gave her a rough time about it. I think there are people who don't drink and there are non-drinkers. People who don't drink can cherry pick the activities and still have a good time. They show up to the picnics in the park and scarf down brownies and strum their guitar and play some frisbee and just not partake in the wine. And then there are non-drinkers who make their non-drinking the focus of all conversations and who are really uncomfortable with drinking. They can be annoying to be around. You want to relax and enjoy yourself and have a glass of shit white wine without somebody talking to you about liver enzymes. And, not to be nasty, you sound a little more like the latter than the former. You, to be very honest, sound like somebody who doesn't necessarily have an easy time socializing. Your story of trying to choke down beer to the incredulity of your 'friends' doesn't exactly exude cool and confidence. Maybe you're going to the wrong events. If you have a hard time socializing at events where drinking is the focus try some activities where they aren't. Universities tend to have lots of clubs - photography, swing dancing, volunteering with animals, politics clubs, gamers, whatever. Not many people go to a club NOT to drink at all. It's like ... going on vacation and staying in your room the entire time. Some people do it but it's not the overwhelmingly popular choice. Maybe you need to change up how you're meeting people and the events you're going to. Because you're expecting sobriety at events where sobriety ain't a thing.### Human: ∆ I think you're somewhat right with me being the latter. I'm not bitter about it to other people, you'll never see me tell someone I don't want them to drink. It's more like I'll just get very uncomfortable when a large bottle of vodka is taken out. Like I said, I saw something when I was younger that has stuck with me and the idea of alcohol has made me uneasy since. I'll admit, after the initial hype of college died down it's been easier to hang out with my true friends. I'll actually be going in a bit to a get together with some of my friends. They plan on drinking, I planned on just having a water. The issue is I've literally met people that have asked me if I want to come drinking and after saying no and explaining myself they get defensive and never really talk to me again. I'm probably exaggerating in my head how common these people are. Although seeming more difficult, not drinking seems to actually put a filter on for toxic people I wouldn't want to be around anyway. I can't complain, I do have friends after all. I consider my view changed!### Assistant: Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because I was much like you- the only reason it wasn't really rough was because I had a small set of very good friends that didn't care if I drank, but it was always awkward when I went to group things or parties where pretty much everyone was drinking, because I was such a Non-Drinker. I have loosened up over the years and it's not the same now that I am a post-college aged adult who is in the professional world. I can go out and just not drink and no one notices, and if they ask and I say I just prefer not to it's left alone. Age is a huge factor in this. I hang out at big gatherings where most people are drinking or flat drunk but it's not strange. I'll even have a drink while out at a happy hour with friends, but that's basically as far as it goes (two drinks is me really loosening up, and I've only been drunk twice.) I noticed that I started to let go of that uneasiness as I found people I was comfortable being around while they drank because they did so responsibly, and when I got away from my mother who is an alcoholic that triggered these big Omg No Alcohol feelings in the first place. She was terrible to be around when drinking. The people I choose to surround myself with now are not.### Human: That's true of lots of things. You have atheists and anti-theists, vegetarians and Vegans, non-smokers and anti-smokers, etc. Really what it comes down to is judging. If people feel you're judging them, they won't like being around you. The OP expressed the same thing in his post, but it seems like he's the type to take the moral high ground or feel uncomfortable around alcohol. To be quite honest, victims of trauma are not much fun to be around when forced to confront the causes. And no one wants to be forced into that situation. It's very much just OP's problem, and other people will be fine with his choice once he gets over the trauma.### Assistant: I don't think any of those groups you listed at the top are inherently bad. They just mean different things.### Human: Well, one implies judgement and the other doesn't. There's probably better words for some of them. That's why I capitalized "Vegan", because I couldn't think of the word for the people who always bring up the fact that meat is made of animals.### Assistant: Then you should say anti-meat. Being vegan and being obnoxious about it are not inherently the same thing.

### Human: CMV: A difference of opinion between two people when there is a significant knowledge gap on the subject shouldn't be called a disagreement.### Assistant: This is ultimately just a very fancy way of expressing the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. The fact that one person knows more about something is actually completely irrelevant to their argument. If a 1st year math student finds an actual contradiction in a proof their professor presents, the professor's greater knowledge is completely irrelevant. Experience and knowledge can affect the *credibility* of an argument, and *relevant* authority can weigh in on who you should believe if you don't have valid reasons to believe otherwise, but it really doesn't mean that smarter or more experienced people are always right. A disagreement is always a disagreement, and deserves to be evaluated on its *merits* not on who is disagreeing with whom.### Human: What about this: Say, person A says fossil fuels are good. His background is seeing the economic and social benefits of fossil fuels. He has no knowledge of renewable energy sources. Person B says fossil fuels are bad. Her background is seeing the environmental impact of fossil fuels and the impending economic and social consequences of a failure to negate these impacts. She has knowledge of renewable energy sources. Do they disagree?### Assistant: It's an interesting question, but rather orthogonal to OP's view. They could be identically knowledgeable about the (different parts of the) field and this dilemma would remain. But yes, I'd have to say that they disagree on the conclusion.### Human: I love the use of "orthogonal" in this context and am planning to use it in conversation tomorrow### Assistant: welcome, freshman### Human: That's insulting to freshmen Not necessarily wrong, but still insulting### Assistant: It's nothing to be ashamed of, all fields have common things their students go through. In medicine you have rampant self-diagnosis during second year, for example. I'm a computer scientist, and also find the word "orthogonal" really useful outside of work. I'm always glad when I want to use it and realize whoever I'm talking to will understand what I mean. So, we could perhaps see knowledge of this phrase as a useful meme that spreads naturally in populations that learn linear algebra. It's fun to see it happen live, a few years after I learned it myself.### Human: The rude part isn't that you assume a freshman is someone just learning "orthogonal", it's that you imagine a freshman will try to use a new word to sound smart. Orthogonal is a interesting word, but it's very unlikely that the person you called a freshman will have the opportunity to use the word tomorrow. What I thought when I read your comment was that you were assuming a freshman would unnecessarily use orthogonal just to sound smart. I guess I was also looking at orthogonal as being a synonym for tangential (as in unrelated to the topic), not in situations were you would be academically using it.### Assistant: I'd use orthogonal as "not related to" - as in "that is orthogonal to our current problem". Tangential implies some relation. I think you are projecting your own judgement of freshmen onto me. I wasn't thinking of them trying to be smart, just the usual burst of relevant situations you usually notice when you learn a new thing.### Human: Well I did state that this was my impression of what your comment was implying, so I deny that I am projecting my feelings onto you. I may have read into your statement, but I am fully willing to admit that that was my personal impression of what you said. I don't want to get into the difference between tangential and orthogonal, lets just let those semantic issues rest for now. I personally have never experienced the plethora of opportunities to use a word once you learn it, my experience is pretty much the opposite of that. I would actually refer to what you're describing as a desire to use the word even if it doesn't quite fit. I remember it took me like 6 months before I had a good reason to actually use laminar, although I certainly could have shoehorned it in before then.### Assistant: > Well I did state that this was my impression of what your comment was implying Oops, my mistake.

### Human: CMV: A federally mandated $15.00 minimum wage is a bad idea.### Assistant: I don't think median income is a good measure, because a minimum wage pegged to this idea would perpetuate an inequality that is already rising. It is plausible that sometime in the future, given existing trends, 50% of the median income would actually be less than $10. There has been some VERY recent rise here, but that is much more easily pegged to the natural recovery from Great Recession trend of low(er) unemployment and companies beginning to compete for labor and recent rise in state minimum wage laws, like California. Frankly, because other ideas exist that probably incentivize more favorable things than others doesn't mean minimum wage is a BAD idea, it just is the most politically feasible one. For instance, I don't think having two houses in Congress is a great idea, it makes one house able to block the other, respond slower to external stimuli, and wastes money/space on duplicate representation rather than more individual representation. But it doesn't mean its a BAD idea, it was just the most feasible idea at the time.### Human: > For instance, I don't think having two houses in Congress is a great idea, it makes one house able to block the other, respond slower to external stimuli, and wastes money/space on duplicate representation rather than more individual representation. But it doesn't mean its a BAD idea, it was just the most feasible idea at the time. Congress was designed to gridlock and be dysfunctional. It wasn't an accident, or the product of bad design. I actually think it's pretty good, because any government that's able to modify itself will quickly subvert the modification system (which is *still* happening...)### Assistant: Not sure why two houses are more effective to guard against this than a super-majority.### Human: Because you can rely on each house being completely selfish. They end up spending so much energy fighting each other that there's none left over to fight the citizens.### Assistant: This is an entirely unsupportable energy-based hypothesis.### Human: It's basic psychology -- divide and conquer.### Assistant: Your hypothesis started out that Congress was designed to gridlock and be dysfunctional. Now you are arguing a divided Congress makes it easier for the citizen to conquer them? Or it divides the citizenry along state lines to make it easy for them to conquer citizens? I'm unsure where you are going with this.### Human: I think you misunderstood what I meant by divide and conquer. Perhaps "unity is strength division is weakness" is more apt. That's my fault for not being clear. ----------- Lets say you want to create a new government. What is a government, exactly? Well, a government is a structure, with a bunch of roles that are then filled out by human elements. However, the type of elements that fill the roles are likely to be power-hungry and greedy, at a bare minimum. These traits are selected for by any structure which rewards the acquisition of power (anyone who is willing to be unconstrained by ethics has a powerful advantage over a moral opponent). We'll call these subversive elements. There is no way to filter subversive elements out, simply because there is no way to accurately determine from the outside whether someone is subversive pretending to be good, or simply good. Therefore, any structure will inevitably be filled with subversives. You can specify people to start, but eventually you will die and no longer be around. You can appoint an heir -- but you have no way to determine whether the heir is good or subversive. You can't create any kind of regulating body because it has to be filled out with people, and again, you have no way to determine whether they are good or not. You could cripple the government, such that it doesn't matter who has power, because there isn't any power. Unfortunately, that simply doesn't work, as history has shown us. So here's what you do. You exploit the psychology of the subversives. Divide and conquer. Split the subversives (and the power, as a result) along artificially drawn lines and aim the resulting groups at each other. Tell them that the other group is *evil* and *horrible* for having certain beliefs. Encourage each group form its own identity separate from the others. What you end up with are two groups constantly grappling for power. Neither can abuse its own limited share of power, because their every action is thwarted by the other. If they worked together, the nation would be their oyster -- but their group identities bind them stronger than any law possibly could. The two groups will only be able to accomplish things which *both* groups agree on -- and those things will be rare and far in between. But at least they're likely to be a majority opinion of the citizens, since the groups need citizen support to retain their power. Of course, the question of whether the citizens are capable of producing beneficial majority opinions is another question... ---- [This experiment](http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html) investigates what I just explained.### Assistant: Okay, got it. You agree with me that the houses make it harder to pass legislation. You haven't made the case that it is more practical to have two 50.1% houses to pass legislation than a 100-member larger Congress with a supermajority. I would err more on the side of smaller districts than on duplicate representation.

### Human: CMV: Most young, single, working people should not own dogs.### Assistant: I think it's important to think about what the alternative would be for that dog in particular. If you get a dog from a shelter that is set to be euthanized the next day, then any life that the owner is able to give it is better than the alternative -- death. Even if you cannot provide a fenced-in backyard with a doggy-door for the dog while you're at work, you still saved the dog's life and are inherently giving it a better life than the alternative. That said, I have personally made a promise to myself that I (young, single, working) will not adopt a dog until I move out of my apartment and into a house with a fenced-in backyard and a doggy-door. However, I'm okay with fostering a dog (in a no-kill program) in my apartment because, well, what was the alternative for that dog?### Human: I disagree that any life is better than death. Consider, for example, a dog with crippling arthritis that is in agony every time it moves and there is no medical way to ease the suffering. This dog should be put to sleep.### Assistant: Ah, perhaps I should have clarified in my original reply. In my example, I meant for the dog to be euthanized the next day SOLELY due to non-adoption, not due to any medical issues. Most of the time, dogs with medical issues who are taken in by animal shelters will be euthanized soon after arrival and will not ever be shown to the public at the shelter / be put up for adoption. Most shelters are overloaded with abandoned dogs -- they don't have the space or other resources to care for a dog who will most likely not be adopted anyways (based on medical issues), so they'll go ahead and euthanize the dog. Therefore, it can be assumed for the sake of this argument that any dog you find at an animal shelter will be free of any medical issues that would impede the dog from being adopted by a member of the general public.### Human: I agree that there may well be extraordinary situations where keeping a dog in confinement may be the least bad available option. What I'm concerned about is the normalization of keeping dogs in species inappropriate accommodations as a routine solution. In a way, I think this may actually tend to drive *up* the number of abandoned and surrendered dogs, as more people with neither the resources nor the time to properly care for a dog receive social encouragement to get a dog in the first place.### Assistant: But my point is that as long as you're adopting a dog from a shelter and not from a breeder, you're giving the dog a better life than it would have had in the shelter and a much better life than it would have had if it were euthanized. Now, I'm not sure if the average person tends to adopt from a breeder or from a shelter, but I'm arguing that as long as you adopt from a shelter, it doesn't matter if you're young, single, and working. And I'm not talking about any extraordinary circumstances -- just those normal, every-day adoptions.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Oh interesting. You learn something new every day!

### Human: CMV: If I wouldn’t have bought the product that I am pirating, online piracy is not immoral.### Assistant: It is a self fulfilling prophecy. The very fact that you can pirate it makes you think less of the product's value and easier to justify your claim that you wouldn't have bought it. > People tend to look unfavorably on individuals who change their attitudes to justify their behaviors because these individuals should be able to see that they are "just rationalizing" and thus realize that their new attitudes are glaringly inauthentic. Our results suggest, however, that the behavior-induced attitude-change process may not be consciously experienced. Because the results of automatic attitude processes are often experienced as a given by the environment rather than constructed by the mind, what looks like disingenuous rationalization from without may feel genuine from within (Bargh, 1989). No doubt there are instances where one is truly honest and really wouldn't have bought the product, but it is not exactly fair when this is determined solely and subjectively. From a more objective perspective, the fact that you are choosing to pirate it out of the many other things that you can pirate suggests you value it more than you acknowledge.### Human: I agree that there is some subjective component where I wouldn't necessarily know, in another universe whether I would value a movie enough to buy it. But there are many clear cases were I definitely wouldn't and cases were I definitely would, and in these cases I can without any moral qualms torrent a movie. I agree with you and with some other commenters in this thread that it is kind of an unfair argument because all the variables are based on how I feel about any particular movie. But it is these kind of subjective factors that determine whether an action is moral.### Assistant: I realize now that that your view is not "pirating does not hurt who you pirate from" but actually "pirating is not immoral" which is just wrong. When a company makes a movie and puts out a movie in theaters they already saying "It costs 16 dollars to watch this." You then don't pat the 16 dollars and you watch it. That is immoral. You are suppose to pay. And saying "I never intended to pay" does not change the fact that you were suppose to pay. I think your average pirate knows that pirating is wrong, but they have ways to justify it, but they know you are not suppose to pirate. You are suppose to pay for things that cost money. Not paying is immoral.### Human: You're not justifying your position here. *Why* is it immoral to refuse to pay? I challenge you to derive this immorality from first principles, or at the very least first principles and an action most people would surely denounce. Are you some kind of deontologist, perhaps?### Assistant: is stealing really that controversial that we have to prove that it's wrong?### Human: Even if the term applies to taking *a copy* of something (which I would dispute), when it does not impoverish the 'victim', then yes, you do have to. What's wrong about it?

### Human: CMV: Nobody truly deserves to be (very) rich.### Assistant: One factor that gets missed a lot in this is the level of risk people take on in starting a new business. When you start a business, especially the kind that has the chance for blockbuster success, you'll usually fail. That means you'll work 80 hour weeks, devote your life to it, and end up broke and in massive debt. To get people to take that chance, there has to be an enormous upside on the success side to counterbalance. It's not just about working hard. It's working hard knowing that there's a very high chance of failure even with hard work. Suppose that I said as your boss that I'll only give you a 1 in 10 chance of getting paid this year (through some genuine random number generator we agree in advance), and your whole salary is going to come in a single lump sum at the end, if you hit the 1 in 10. How big would I have to make the salary to get you to agree to that?### Human: >One factor that gets missed a lot in this is the level of risk people take on in starting a new business. I think that's what's creating much of the unrest we see today. It would be hard to argue that Elon Musk doesn't deserve his RoI. But today's millionaires are not Elon Musks, they're financial services executives that gambled with other people's money and still got bonuses when they lost.### Assistant: I agree there are many people who don't really deserve to be rich, but how is Elon Musk not one of "today's" millionaires? He made his fortune all in the past 20 years, much, if not most of it, in the past 10. And he made it by making things (genuinely useful financial services, rocket ships, and cars) that people want. Ok, not that many people want rocket ships, but a good number of companies want their satellites launched on rocket ships, and are willing to pay SpaceX to perform those launches.### Human: The point is that Musk is gambling his own money. Financial services executives/managers are gambling with other people's money.### Assistant: Yeah, but that Musk and others who gamble with their own money/effort and see it pay off are somebodies who deserve to be rich, which is the point I was making.

### Human: CMV: I think that women in the US should have to register for selective service the same way men do.### Assistant: So the thing is... activating the selective service registration is a desperate emergency sort of situation. We're not going to do that unless we don't have the time to beef up the army with volunteers. We're talking zombie apocalypse (ok, sudden invasion by the Chinese) levels of emergency here. The modern army simply doesn't need or want draftees. It's a highly skilled technical profession requiring experienced troops now. So what's my point? It's true that a few women are capable of taking on the role of infantry soldiers, and we should let them do so without prejudice. But the vast majority aren't. They simply lack the upper body strength to be anything but a hindrance. If you're going to keep a reserve around for emergencies where there's little time available for being selective... it only makes sense to have that reserve come from a group where 90% of the group is qualified, rather than a group where only 10% is. It would be a huge waste of time and resources to sift through all women in a draft situation to find the few that you can throw into the breech as shock troops without getting in the way.### Human: Ok, so, counterpoint...you mention that the majority of women would not make good infantry soldiers. I agree with you on this, but what about support jobs? Maybe the selective service obligation for women would only include being drafted into support positions such as supply, air traffic control, etc.### Assistant: Or what about me? I'm a skinny, lanky college freshman who would be a shit soldier. Since I would only be a hindrance, do I not have to register for the selective service?### Human: You would be put in the classified captain America program.### Assistant: Haha totally.

### Human: CMV: Sunni Islam has a sizeable contingent of individuals with 'incompatible views'### Assistant: The problem as I see it with this view of Islam is that there is no single Islam. Islam has been around for nearly 1400 years, and in that time, it had had splits, schisms, heterodox interpretations and had to adapt and evolve to the societies that have adopted it. Within Sunni Islam alone, you have different schools of jurisprudence, modern liberal interpretations, stricter interpretations along the line of the Salafis and Wahabis, and of course, you have jihadists who take the attitudes of Wahabism to their logical extreme. To assume that the more conservative or even extreme interpretations of Islam would be like assuming that all of Christianity consists of either Jerry Falwell type Bible thumpers or the Lord's Resistance Army.### Human: Did you watch OPs video? That's not what it is like. A former Muslim over in /r/atheism said a while back that the difference between a radical and moderate Muslim is hat a radical will kill you while a moderate will just hope that a radical kills you. I don't live within that community, I didn't grow up with it, so I can't claim to know how accurate that claim is, but the video OP shared definitely supports the idea that Islam is inherently more violent than other religions and that it adamantly pushes for policies that aren't compatible with the 21st century.### Assistant: You fall into the same trap as people who judge all Muslims by the actions of extremists. You're simply taking the word of an "ex-Muslim" on /r/atheism as fact and taking his word as a truthful generalization. The reality is that Muslims are a massive and diverse group of people, and they will never all fit into a single basket. By generalizing all of them the same way, you're doing an injustice to those you don't actually fit that profile.### Human: Did you watch the video? Hundreds of English speaking presumably moderate Muslims, are agreeing with those standpoints. Theres one white guy in the front row looking super uncomfortable but everyone else raises heir hands in support of the speaker.Pew polls of Muslim nations show overwhelming support for Sharia law. Laws against apostasy and laws supporting death by stoning are common and are supported by the majority of people there.### Assistant: I absolutely watched the video. "Presumably moderate" means nothing, is purely speculation, and thus has no relevance here. Using the term "moderate" in every other discussion of Muslims is just another attempt to categorize and generalized a massive group of people into categories, "moderate" or "radical". Anyway, yes, the video shows a group of people agreeing with a speaker who preaches values which are far different from those of Western nations. Nobody will deny that. One can argue that people who hold these views are incapable of integrating with Western society. The problem arises when people take a small sample such as this and cast a wider net, many going so far as to presume Muslims of Western nations as believing in the same things. This is a racist and unfair assumption, and doing that promotes Islamophobia in that people see a group of Muslims and cultural norms and assume that ALL Muslims are like that, and they thus become fearful of all Muslims. Even when you look at Pew polls, these are beliefs in majority Muslim countries. Just because the respondents of Pew polls in Afghanistan believe one thing, that doesn't mean that ALL Muslims in Western nations believe the same thing. Just like "pray away the gay" and Bible belt Christians fall under the umbrella of Christianity, these people fall under the umbrella of Islam. Just because I saw one Christian guy attacking a woman coming out of a Planned Parenthood doesn't mean I'm going to assume that every Christian I speak to feels the same way, and will behave the same way.### Human: The pew polls have been done in western nations and most still have 20-40% supporting those views, and that's just the ones who admit it outright. I'm not saying it's all or that you cant be Muslim and a good person. But I am saying that it isn't something you see in western civilization or in any other major religion, and the change has to come from within if it will ever happen, but that isn't likely to happen with the public opinion amongst Muslims worldwide overwhelmingly supporting it.### Assistant: 20-40% by definition means the majority doesn't support it. Even still, what is your expectation? For 100% to change their beliefs? Can you imagine a way to make all Christians hold the same practice and views? That's impossible. A more realistic expectation might be for people to integrate or at the least for them not to force their views on others, but that is already mostly the case in the western world. Just because a fifth of people hold a certain view on social issues doesn't mean they wish to impose that view upon others.### Human: Well first of all, no it doesn't, it could mean that a large portion have no opinion. But 20-40% is still a large percentage. And I'm not nor have I ever dealt in absolutes. I didn't ever say I expected all of the muslim world to be peaceful. My expectation is that a strong majority be peaceful and adopt opinions more compatible with the civilized world. And when I say civilized I mean rejecting death penalty for apostasy, rejecting honor killings, rejecting acid attacks, rejecting intentional targeting of civilians, rejecting sexism, rejecting murdering children. These things are still extremely common in the muslim world. And I'd like to see that 20-40% figure drip closer to 1-2%.

### Human: CMV: American Libertarian beliefs, at their core, is based in naiveté.### Assistant: I think your problem is assuming that believing in a philosophy means it should be applied in all cases. People in the US who identify as socialist probably don't want completely state-run markets, and people who identify as libertarian probably don't want the government to disband. What they want is for the government to act more libertarian than it is at the moment. All of your examples are specific areas where a large government role would be good. You can be libertarian and still support government intervention in many of those cases. That's why the libertarian party isn't calling for the end of sanitation programs, but they might support having it run privately it so that competition can drive down the costs and save taxpayer money. Also, in response to point A - Larger government roles in business and regulation can increase corruption. When government is smaller, there is less of a reason to corrupt people to begin with. Moreover, [campaign finance regulations solve a non-problem.](http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/)### Human: >I think your problem is assuming that believing in a philosophy means it should be applied in all cases. People in the US who identify as socialist probably don't want completely state-run markets, and people who identify as libertarian probably don't want the government to disband. What they want is for the government to act more libertarian than it is at the moment. All of your examples are specific areas where a large government role would be good. You can be libertarian and still support government intervention in many of those cases. That's why the libertarian party isn't calling for the end of sanitation programs, but they might support having it run privately it so that competition can drive down the costs and save taxpayer money. That's fine. I believe the reasoning is naive. The reasoning that individuals are both less corruptible and more efficient seems entirely unfounded. >Also, in response to point A - Larger government roles in business and regulation can increase corruption. When government is smaller, there is less of a reason to corrupt people to begin with. I could say a decrease in government role can increase corruption and it would have just as much evidence. I don't see how your statement is relevant. There is no indication or proof of that statement. Not only that, then if the power is outside the government whose to stop an amoral individual taking that power and making life worse across the board for individuals? Point being, if the govt has no power to stop you then why wouldn't you do it? If they do have the power to stop you then they would be worth corrupting. >Moreover, campaign finance regulations solve a non-problem. So what that link indicates is that elections aren't bought but officials are bought? How is that a non-problem?### Assistant: > That's fine. I believe the reasoning is naive. But your post literally never addresses that reasoning. All you do is list three examples, two of which are assuming that there are no libertarians that would support a government role in climate change regulation or collective action problems, which is false. >The reasoning that individuals are both less corruptible and more efficient seems entirely unfounded. Re: "less corruptible" It's not about individuals being less corruptible, it's about incentives to corrupt. There is no incentive to corrupt an official if the wield no power. [Here's an example](http://www.reuters.com/article/banks-study-idUSN2124009320091221) of an instance where research links a large government role in the financial sector to government favoritism. But regardless of the specific examples, the logic is that attempts to corrupt are based on cost/benefit analysis. If the government plays a very small role, the benefit of corruption is small, and not worth the cost. Sure, you *could* just say that it decreases corruption, but you'd be missing my point. Additionally, more corruption isn't something that's definitively worth dismissing an entire theory of government for. Maybe there is more corruption. [Some researchers don't even think that would be a bad thing.](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/) But more corruption could be worth improved economic growth and increased freedom. I'm not even anywhere near libertarian, but calling those values "naive" is not giving libertarianism thought it deserves. Re: "more efficient" More efficient than what? What are you comparing it to? And in what instances? Even when individuals are inefficient, why are you so convinced that the government is so definitively more efficient than the individual that anyone who thinks otherwise is naive? There's lots of research in behavioral economics about certain instances where people are irrational (e.g. choice paradox), but there's also loads of instances where they are. The ratio of rational-to-irrational is extremely heavily debated in economics, but to dismiss one side of this topic as "entirely unfounded" is ridiculous. Moreover, I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians that would use behavioral economics research to support government intervention to correct for the instances where individuals are irrational in order to incentivize rationality and lead to a more efficient market that way.### Human: >It's not about individuals being less corruptible, it's about incentives to corrupt. There is no incentive to corrupt an official if the wield no power Unless you are an anarchist that is irrelevant as they will wield power. Having fewer checks and balances in other government has resulted in more corruption not less. >Here's an example of an instance where research links a large government role in the financial sector to government favoritism. That does not link size of government to corruption just the play that business has in government to corruption. > If the government plays a very small role, the benefit of corruption is small, and not worth the cost. Sure, you could just say that it decreases corruption, but you'd be missing my point. Maybe but still whats to stop the government from evolving into a more powerful state because of the corruption it does have? What checks and balances would be proposed. What powers does the government not have in your model that it currently possesses? And what would be to stop it from accruing that power the same way that it did in the first place? >But regardless of the specific examples, the logic is that attempts to corrupt are based on cost/benefit analysis. If the government plays a very small role, the benefit of corruption is small, and not worth the cost. Sure, you could just say that it decreases corruption, but you'd be missing my point. That is an argument for another day. I will say that if that is true then you are correct in that it isn't naive. You have CMV. ∆ I still disagree and would find the idea of a corrupt government acceptable as repulsive but that is not the purpose of this post so thank you for expanding my horizons on possible views of thought. >why are you so convinced that the government is so definitively more efficient than the individual that anyone who thinks otherwise is naive? I am not, I am just saying that it is an assumption. In the short term I bet someone with a passion and money would be way more efficient at progressing computer technology than the government. However once that individual has amassed immense wealth what is to stop them from impeding progress on purpose to maintain a grip on the market? Currently there are not good methods for that as seen by Microsoft in the 90's. So in the long term would a 100% government funded program for research have put us further along or what we had? We don't know. >There's lots of research in behavioral economics about certain instances where people are irrational (e.g. choice paradox), but there's also loads of instances where they are. The ratio of rational-to-irrational is extremely heavily debated in economics, but to dismiss one side of this topic as "entirely unfounded" is ridiculous. Moreover, I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians that would use behavioral economics research to support government intervention to correct for the instances where individuals are irrational in order to incentivize rationality and lead to a more efficient market that way. I think I missed something. What are you thinking I am implying that this train of thought would combat? Sorry.### Assistant: Where are you getting this fewer checks and balances from? That is not a libertarian proposal. Checks and balances are good. If anything they would want more checks and balances.### Human: OK I must be not understanding libertarian goals. Checks and balances would indicate larger government no? If not how would that be done and reduce govt?### Assistant: Checks and balances do not necessarily indicate larger government. Checks and balances is simply a distribution of power. It is fully supported by libertarians as they want the government to have less power, and checks and balances absolutely help accomplish that. The libertarian fear is dictatorship. The more power is spread the less that is possible. You can have a smaller government and still have checks and balances. Smaller government doesn't simply mean "less people." Libertarians want the people that do exist in government to have less power and they want the budget to be less. You can make the government "smaller" by not changing the structure or the amount of people at all. If you reduce the military budget by 15%, that makes the government smaller. If you make things legal that used to be illegal, like drugs, marriage, abortion, etc. that makes the government smaller. There is no longer a law governing this aspect of people's lives and therefore the government has less power over people and the government is smaller.### Human: OK I can get all of that. I am specifically talking about economic policy. Gary Johnson is a large advocate that if you decrease corporate liability they will provide money jobs and benefits for american citizens across the board. To me, that is naive, there is evidence of the opposite. The only way that would be true is if america was aiming to be more like South Korea. Nationalistic, lowest paid people live with their parents until 30 or more due to high cost of living, people working +60 hours a week regularly. Gary Johnson is only positive in local economics if you do not care about the average quality of life of your citizens. Now you may say, why would I care, if they want to they can work hard enough to get out of their hole. To that I say, show many any sort of evidence or proof, every historical example and all current research indicates the opposite is true. I don't think cutting government bloat is necessarily bad. I think that treating money like it isn't a shared resource is completely foolish.### Assistant: >Gary Johnson is a large advocate that if you decrease corporate liability they will provide money jobs and benefits for american citizens across the board. What do you mean by this? Tax liability? I haven't seen anything on the libertarian platform suggest cutting taxes for corporations. The closest thing on the platform to what you are describing is >We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise. Which just says the government shouldn't bail out private businesses, or try to boost businesses that it thinks should succeed through subsidies. A huge reason for this would be exactly because of corruption. If the government gets to decide certain businesses get a subsidy, what is to stop people from paying whoever makes that decision to make it in their favor? Do you have the source of his comments so that I can try to see what he means by that?### Human: >What do you mean by this? Tax liability? I haven't seen anything on the libertarian platform suggest cutting taxes for corporations. Eliminate double taxation embodied in business income taxes. (Jan 2016) Built Big J Enterprises into leading construction company. (Aug 2012) Eliminate corporate income tax as real way to create jobs. (Jun 2011) Lower the tax burden; eliminate corporate tax. (May 2011) No tariffs, no restrictions; but no corporatism. (Jul 2011) Unlimited campaign contributions by corporations. (Jul 2011) Full disclosure, but no limits on campaign donations. (Jan 2001) Governments don't create jobs--businesses do. (Feb 2012) 23% national sales tax while eliminating the IRS. (May 2012) Get rid of income tax and capital-gains tax. (Feb 2012) http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm### Assistant: Those aren't the actual quotes but the site does have some of them. And basically all of that is from the fact that he supports a VAT. It's fine if you don't. It works in many European countries, and I simply don't know enough about it to know whether it would be better or worse. I also believe that as president there is no way he would be able to actually accomplish a complete shift to a VAT from an income tax, but regardless the discussion is about the beliefs being naive so we can discuss it. He is explicitly talking about replacing our current tax system with a different one, not lowering corporate taxes. The current tax system is bloated to the extent that politicians can say they are taxing corporations appropriately, but the team of lawyers used by them ensures they pay much less than they should. There are loopholes, hidden, that they lobbied for and therefore it's a win-win for both politicians and megacorps because they get to say they are taxing them publicly and meanwhile the corporations can legally avoid paying them. The actual quote from your source is this >Many leading economists have long advocated such a shift in the way we are taxed, and Gary Johnson believes the time has come to eliminate the punishing tax code we have today and replace it with a system that rewards productivity, investment & savings. And it's not something he said, it's on his campaign website. And it truncates the quote in order to paint a narrative because the rest of it says >For far too long, tax laws have been used not just as a means to collect needed revenues, but as a way for special interests to penalize their competitors while subsidizing themselves. The result is a tax code that is more than 70,000 pages long, enforced by a government agency with almost 100,000 employees. As a result, our tax code has created a nightmare for the average American, while providing shelter for those with the means to manipulate it. >Governor Johnson advocates for the elimination of special interest tax loopholes, to get rid of the double-taxation on small businesses, and ultimately, the replacement of all income and payroll taxes with a single consumption tax that determines your tax burden by how much you spend, not how much you earn. Such a tax would be structured to insure that no one’s tax burden for the purchase of basic family necessities would be increased. To the contrary, costs of necessities would likely decrease with the elimination of taxes already included in the price of virtually everything we buy. Again I think your view stems from an argument against a caricature of libertarian beliefs rather than what they actually are. Many sources comparing parties display the information in such a way as to distort what the actual view is, regardless of which party they may or may not be biased towards, because they both have a vested interest in keeping libertarians out of the discussion. And still, support for a VAT isn't naive it is at the very least incredibly complex. Thinking a VAT is a bad idea (which again I only know of Great Britain and other European countries that use one but it apparently works for them) is different from thinking that it is such a ridiculous position as to be naive.

### Human: CMV: I believe banning "assault rifles" is symbolic and only provides the illusion of security.### Assistant: I am someone who is divided on guns. I just am. I grew up in hunting culture and I believe strongly in hunting rights. I also had my first gun at five. I like guns. I'm not anti-gun. I also agree with your math. Realistically, we're not stopping a whole hell of a lot of shootings by getting rid of high-capacity assault rifles. And you're also correct that, if someone wants someone dead badly enough, they are going to get it done by other measures. I know, not really changing your view, am I? So...here's where I run into problems, personally. **Psychological distance**. We have a gun problem in this country and we haven't found a good way to solve it. Shooting is stupid easy. You pull the trigger, and you end someone. If I want to stab you, strangle you, beat you to death I have to get pretty fucking close to you. I have to smell your cologne. I have to be right there. On the flip side, if I want to release a bio-chemical agent into the drinking water, I don't have to even be in the same state as you. So its not like getting rid of guns stops people from killing people remotely. We're doing it with drones every day. But we have a gun problem. We just do. This isn't mythological. And I say that as someone who likes guns. And the problem isn't access, the problem isn't hunting, and the problem isn't that we can't find more and better creative ways of killing people. It is, fundamentally, psychological. And I'm not talking about mental health, though that's certainly a factor. I mean that culturally, somewhere deep in the DNA of this country, the zeitgeist, we've internalized gun violence in a way that really bugs me. We're getting it from all sides. First person shooters, every cop/forensic/law-and-order style television show, every action movie, conceal-and-carry, protect your home, you need a handgun in the nightstand; it is literally everywhere. Think about the number of times, in a given week, you hear a gun shot. It's staggering. And as I'm not excluding myself from this. I am really not. I am playing these games, watching these movies and television shows. I don't think video games make children "violent". I just don't buy that bullshit. I do know owning a handgun makes you more likely to die in the event of a home invasion. I get twisted up here. But here's what I do know: **we like guns**. We know this because they are so ubiquitous that I don't even think about it anymore. This country LOVES guns. We're obsessed. We've made it a national fetish. **So I agree: it may be it is symbolic, maybe it doesn't actually reduce the likelihood that you're going to die**. But maybe it is still, irrespective of the real impact, an important impact none-the-less. Maybe we need to have a national wake-up call about how much we've internalized guns as normal and common and valid. Maybe instead of clinging desperately to this argument and carting it out every time there's a shooting like this, or like Sandy Hook, and pointing fingers and blaming a shitty mental heath system or waiting periods or Call of Duty, we need a bigger picture. We need to look at how I can hold this thing in my hand and end your life when I can't even see the color of your eyes. And how weirdly okay we are with cops killing people, people killing people, hand-guns and drive-bys and movies where dudes fire machine guns into rows of faceless bad guys and ask what that's doing to us, as a people. There's something really dark and philosophical underpinning all of this. But the thing is, I can't quite put my finger on it. I wish I could. I wish I could say, "Here's the thing that changes it". But I don't know and I'm willing to admit I don't know. But there's something sick inside of us where we're all radically okay with the amount of gun violence in this country. And I'm not sure symbolic gestures aren't an important part of that.### Human: > ∆ you shifted my view because maybe it doesn't actually reduce the likelihood that you're going to die, but I agree with that maybe in the larger picture it could serve aa call for societal change in the complicity with violence as a whole .### Assistant: Slippery slope?### Human: California some years ago wanted to ban detachable magazines. The compromise for this was the bullet button, which requires a small object like a bullet to be pressed in to release the magazine. Think of it like the reset button on electronics. With the current legislative session, they're trying to [ban it.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880)### Assistant: I wouldn't call that a compromise, more like a loophole. The legislature was looking for one thing and the courts gave them another. I guess it is sort of an example of a slippery slope, but it's an even better example of ingenuity. The passion of gun owners will always exceed the knowledge of the people who write gun laws.

### Human: CMV: If you can't raise a child that's a healthy weight, you are a bad parent.### Assistant: I was an obese child. My parents (who raised 4 other children) allowed me to eat an unhealthy amount of junk food, fast food, etc. and allowed me to play video games and watch TV during the vast majority of my free time. I consider these to be failures of parenting that I hope not to recreate with my children. They did however ensure that I always knew that I was loved, they made sure I always put my education first, and instilled in me a sense of independence and morality that I treasure to this day. When I graduated highschool, I was 275+ lbs (6' male). I was also given a full ride scholarship to a good engineering school, as well as a number of other scholarships that paid for misc. expenses. I was voted "Mr. Senior" by my peers and the teachers at my highschool. I had more than a handful of incredible friendships that last to this day (11 yrs later). All of my friends were healthy weights. One was physically abused by their parents. One was emotionally repressed due to their parents' religion. One had to practically raise them self because their parents were never around. One was raised by a single mother because their father couldn't handle the responsibility. I would never call my parents bad parents even though there were obvious moments of failure throughout their parenting. I think there should be more conversations about childhood obesity and how we can help prevent it, but I think it is wrong to label parents as "bad" by one visible mistake without looking at all of the individual circumstances that they have to deal with and the good they are able to otherwise do. Sorry for grammar/ sentence structure. On phone and too difficult to edit well.### Human: I'd say it was more child abuse. For many, I'm not saying you in particular, the foundation and the way you eat as a child affects you for the rest of your life. I know many people and have researched that when a child is given unhealthy food and becomes obese they are not only gonna have trouble losing it later in life than normal people but also of course be more prone to all sorts of diseases and diabetes. Yes they loved you and supported which helped you to excel in all aspects but they didn't set you up for a healthy body which is just as important as having a healthy mind. Arguably more important because without a healthy body everything suffers in some aspect. And as a child you had no say in the matter as to what you could eat. Of course your not gonna turn down a fatty burger which sends any taste buds wild due to evolution wanting us to have things like that to survive harsh times 20,000 years ago. Purely your parents decisions and they knew a vegetable, fruit etc is better than a McDonald's kids meal. Yes, they gave you a healthy mind, but noticing you getting fatter when they are most likely fat themselves and not wanting a different path for their own child is wrong.### Assistant: So pretty much any mistake a parent makes while raising their children makes them a bad parent?### Human: Define bad parent### Assistant: Sorry, I do not have any definitions for "bad parent" --- ^(I am a bot. If there are any issues, please contact my [)[^master](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Spedwards&subject=/u/Define_It)^(].) ^(Want to learn how to use me? [)[^(Read this post)](http://redd.it/31vrec)^(].)

### Human: I believe that any "free" market will inevitably end up in a state of monopoly or oligopoly. CMV.### Assistant: There is a difference between free markets and competitive markets, and I think that distinction must be made, as it is largely ignored in discourse today. Here is a link to the definition of a competitive market. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition Basically, economists like Adam Smith advocated for competitive markets, not free markets, which requires heavy regulation, to strike down monopolies, price fixing, and eliminate imperfect information (an example being insider trading laws, although Chicago School economist Milton Friedman advocated for striking down insider trading laws, to create more efficient markets, information would reach the market quicker, decrease price discovery time, but I digress). On the other side, Adam Smith also advocated for monopolies as well, defense and the courts being examples.### Human: Many of OP's examples are economies of scale - it's can be more efficient / profitable for one company to produce and sell lots of soft drink products than for many companies to each produce and sell a soft drink product, for example.### Assistant: But that undermines the diverse choices offered by different competitors. Sometimes you gotta ask it that a sacrifice worth making.### Human: If you want certain product at a non prohibitively expensive price, economies of scale can go a long way towards getting you there. The concept being that the marginal cost of producing units gets lower as you produce more. [Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale)### Assistant: It was not prohibitively expensive to be a customer of Banc One in the 80s, nor Bank One in the 90s. I do not for a second believe that joining Chase was intended as a means of keeping costs low in order to produce a cost effective product, it was to maximize profits.### Human: And how do you maximize profit? You cut costs or increase revenue. Even though it was not prohibitably expensive, even 1% decrease in costs amounts to millions of dollars. Remember, if you have billions of transaction, 1 cent cost cut per transaction amounts to quite a bit. On the revenue side, mergers might increase the customers available for your product.### Assistant: To my mind it is possible to maximize profits too much. At some point it costs society as a whole and does damage to the rest of us. As evidence I point to the fact that corporate profits and productivity have steadily increased and incomes have not risen with them. Companies have a duty to make as much money as possible, and part of where that money comes from is what they should be paying their employees. The situation is not good for society as a whole and is a function of the system.### Human: But if you don´t push costs, someone else who do will underbid you. A company has to stay competitive or it will be pushed out. That means constant innovation and/or cost cutting. It is the same for people, the market controls the wages in the states to a large degree, the job going to the lowest qualified bidder. It is not up to the company to increase wages, that is something that is up to the government to either set a minimum wage or to let the free market control it. As a wage slave it sucks, but that is the way it is. As for what is good for society as a whole, economic theory dictates that what is best is whatever is most profitable as a total. Whether the shareholder gets the pot or the worker is irrelevant, as long as you max the surplus. However, personally I agree with you that this culture of greed has been taken too far in the US, and people seem to be unable to earn a fair wage or fair terms of employment.### Assistant: If profits weren't at record levels you might have a point, but they are. It isn't competition driving costs lower, at least not exclusively. If it were then profits wouldn't be so high. This is not beneficial for society and isn't sustainable indefinitely. Your argument is that sweat shops are good, and safety regulations are bad, for society. In a situation like this wages are effectively a profit center. If productivity increases, the value for each man hour worked to produce increases, but wages don't increase to match. In this way the profit taken from labor increases, but the people actually doing to work get no benefit.

### Human: CMV: Factory farming is immoral.### Assistant: It is justified if people live on the basic premise that animals don't have the same right to live compared to humans. So the call to empathy, to me, is a premise not an argument. You and I might agree that it should be different, but most people are still ok with the current laws. Even people who agree on animal rights disagree on the reasons, means and political regime that should enforce them. For people who disagree, the problem and debate is deeper than that IMO, along the line of natural law vs positive law.### Human: I highly doubt that "most people are ok with current laws". In fact, I'd imagine that most people *don't want to even think about where their meat comes from.* And even if they aren't willfully ignorant, factory farming never, ever, ever (very rarely) is covered by the mainstream media. And empathy has nothing to do with whether or not animals other than human have a right to live. They are fully capable of suffering, both physically and mentally, and that is where empathy comes in.### Assistant: Let me add some dimension and food for thought to your stance. Mind you, I am a vegan and was president and founder of a veg club in college. People don't care about sweatshop clothing, or the homeless people they see in their cities, or the harshness of the prison system or the incredibly horrible international issues around the world. Not all people, but easily most in the western world. This being the case, empathy still has some leaps to perform without what is arguably the most obvious choices for it's application before it can approach animals. For this reason subject like this require motivating factors aside from altruism, I would say.### Human: "Sweat shop worker" is just an abstraction. You can't really feel empathy for an abstraction. It's individuals that we emotionally invest ourselves in, not some nebulous thing we are only kinda sorta aware of.### Assistant: [when the clothing factory collapsed 2 years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse) killing over 1000 people, it didn't stop people from wanting cheap clothing. There is a disconnect there between people in horrible working conditions, and the fact that you can walk into old navy or H&M and buy an entire outfit for under $20. Its no different than factory farms and the disconnect between being able to buy cheap packaged clean meat. People don't like to think about how they are afforded cheap luxuries at the expense of others.

### Human: CMV: The more I study political science and economics the more it seems that the public really has no idea what they're talking about. It leads me to believe a government truly responsive to the will of the people will eventually fail.### Assistant: That's why in America we don't have a Democracy, we have a Republic. People know what they want (a better economy, more equality, more freedoms, etc.) and elect knowledgable individuals to make those things happen. While it's true that most people don't know how to achieve those goals, the fact that these goals are met is more important to people then how it is done. People don't care that Bush cut taxes they care that the economy crashed (though I wouldn't say one caused the other necessarily).### Human: I know we have a republic. Democratically elected representatives. And I would argue people elect based on policy not based on want. Both candidates promise what the people want (for the most part), the difference is how they obtain it.### Assistant: You (and most academic political scientists and economists) make a key assumption - that most people don't understand what they want. If, on the other hand, you assume that people act in their self-interest (which they mostly do) then it's simply a matter of which interests or set of interests prevail. Perhaps I can illustrate. I've seen Android and iPhone users get fanatical about their product of choice. Android users often criticize Apple for "telling people what they want" (more or less, if I understand it correctly). Does that mean that Apple is analogous to the media - that people's perceptions are so distorted by marketing and hype that they can't make rational choices? Of course not - people like how easy the iPhone is to use, how it looks, its whatever, and the other thing.### Human: > If, on the other hand, you assume that people act in their self-interest (which they mostly do) then it's simply a matter of which interests or set of interests prevail. It's in everyone's interest to have a government that is dedicated to protecting individual rights in all contexts, yet virtually no one votes for candidates advancing this cause. People don't know what is in their own self interest, or intentionally vote otherwise due to their moral code.### Assistant: Again, you're substituting *your* interests for *theirs*. I agree with you, it's in our best interest for the government to protect individual rights. Others disagree, and believe individual rights should be somewhat lessened in the name of crime prevention. OP and others make the critical assumption that their opinions are correct. Despite how confident we are in our positions (and I do think we're correct) there are other positions and their supporters feel equally confident.### Human: I think you're conflating interest with desire. Virtually all people *desire* the violation of other's rights, but that doesn't mean it is in their *interest*.### Assistant: I don't think the first part of that statement is true at all - I certainly don't desire that others' rights are violated. But you don't know how others value their relative security, and there's really no way to *know* what is actually in our interest. We're both pretty confident greater personal liberties is simply better. But a middle-aged father of three young kids might have extremely different views. Like I said, you can't assume that your opinion is right, then criticize others for not sharing it.### Human: Are you sure you don't advocate for the violation of others rights? Do you oppose all gun laws? Do you oppose all drug laws? Do you oppose every government intervention in the economy aside from those involving force or fraud?### Assistant: Fair point. I support reasonable restrictions on others' rights, as do almost all. Elections are about where the balance lies between the absolute extremes.### Human: There's no such thing as a reasonable restriction on the rights of innocent men, only popular ones.### Assistant: Reasonable people would disagree. (and do)

### Human: CMV: Reddit should purge an account that has no login activity within the past two years and was created with no email address to reset the password### Assistant: The trouble is that having users take over existing usernames could cause the old owner's posts and comments to be misattributed to them. This could lead to confusion, especially if the previous owner revealed personal information or expressed views different from the current owner's.### Human: Simple solution, the account is deleted and then remade right? So the old comments would remain, but they would say they were posted by <deleted>.### Assistant: This is a good idea, but as others have said this would result in a bunch of [deleted]s replying to each other, making the thread hard to follow.### Human: Is it really that big of an issue? How many accounts are really going to get purged like this? How often do people even read several year old threads? Seems like an issue so minor it shouldn't affect decision making.### Assistant: Well, I can imagine quite a few accounts getting purged as I know that many people periodically abandon their accounts to prevent too much personal information accumulating on one account. I read old threads quite often, and many people have said they do too. You're right that this is a relatively trivial concern, though. I think the larger problem is that of users being confused with their predecessors; as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even if X's username on his old comments is replaced with "X_purged", people who remember X aren't going to go check his old comments and will just think X is back.### Human: How about a numbering system? Each account is purged one by one, and assigned a number. That way in the event of an old back and forth thread, purged1625 is talking with purged2337. Seems like an easy fix.### Assistant: This is a good idea that would resolve the issue of multiple [deleted] users. It would also prevent the bug I've seen often where when OP is [deleted], all [deleted] users in the comments are marked as OP. Another good idea is the "oldusername_purged" system suggested by another user. I'm still doubtful about this idea as a whole because of the issues raised in the second paragraph of my last comment about users being confused with their predecessors; however, you've changed my view that this would break down the coherence of old threads, so here you go: ∆### Human: Thanks for my first (unofficial) delta! But I'm confused about why you're doubtful about the confusion considering my suggestion. Why attach the old username to the new description? I agree that X_purged would cause people to confuse the two, why not just have the whole replacement name say <purged1623>? The issue of confusion from people naming other users in old threads by their removed username seems like it is at least a whole order of magnitude less significant than even the confusion of two people talking back and forth. There could be no automatic purging but every time someone actually tries to get a username it checks to see if an existing one can be purged, so 99% of usernames would have no reason to ever change in the first place.### Assistant: No problem! Oh, if the delta isn't registering you can message the mods to get it rescanned :) The confusion I'm referring to isn't really from people reading old threads. It's from people who remember old users, say they interacted with a user called X. X falls off the face of the earth and two years later activity pops up under X's username again. You would probably assume that X has returned and this is the same person you interacted with in the past; you probably wouldn't go look up X's old comments to see if the username has been changed to "purged3456" or whatever. That's where the confusion comes from, and that gives people the opportunity to maliciously impersonate old users (say, pretending to be X and taking advantage of X's relationships with other users).### Human: Oh nice, how do I do that exactly? Should I "report" your message and just say it didn't register or something? I want my badge dangit! Also fair point, I hadn't considered it like that I guess. Still seems like a pretty rare scenario you're describing though, since it mostly only matters for popular names and those are probably mostly still active, and if there are cool usernames people want that were just taken and "wasted" so to speak then no one will have interacted with them previously anyway (like "thrillho" with only one message or whatever).### Assistant: You can just send a PM to /r/changemyview (that contacts the mods) and include a link to the comment where I gave you the delta! I had to do that once too when DeltaBot missed my delta :D I was thinking that even if users weren't very active in the whole of Reddit, they could still have been prominent in their own small subreddits, and could also have interacted personally with other users. But you're right that this isn't likely to happen very often, and most usurped users won't have had a lot of activity anyway! Perhaps this could be limited to users with no or almost no prior activity? :)

### Human: If you are not an organ donor (by choice), you should be at the end of the list for transplants if you need one. CMV### Assistant: It is not for the medical community to decide who should live and who should die. There is nothing that you can do to make yourself less worthy of medical treatment. Now, because resources are limited and important resources like organs, the people in charge of distributing those resources may sometimes have to decide who *can* live. That requires them to decide who will get the most use out of the resource, they must judge who's health will likely be most positively effected. But doctors and transplant boards are not judges and juries. They do not judge whether you deserve an organ, just whether you're likely to get a certain level of use out of an organ.### Human: Still didn't really catch the full point of OP's post. Don't categorize by quality of life gained, just have two tiers, donors and non donors. Donors would still be first come first served. Non donors would be after the donors.### Assistant: > two tiers One tier of people the medical establishment deems "more worthy" based on a moral consideration.Its still wrong. Doctors don't get to judge the moral worth of their patients and hand out organs for good behaviour.### Human: > One tier of people the medical establishment deems "more worthy" based on a moral consideration.Its still wrong. You've implicitly stated this a few times, but the main thrust of the OP's statement is to suggest that, no, it isn't. Why do you think that it is wrong to prioritise based on donor status? What is wrong with doctors making this judgement?### Assistant: This: >Now, because resources are limited and important resources like organs, the people in charge of distributing those resources may sometimes have to decide who can live. That requires them to decide who will get the most use out of the resource, they must judge who's health will likely be most positively effected. If you put any other factor before who *can* live, which is a probability and therefor no 2 are usually equal, you diminish the effectiveness of organ transplants. Factors beyond the chances of success that can come in are life expectancy, age, need of an organ and any other factor that overall increases the time lived by patients. Giving an organ to someone who will live 20 years longer if saved is medically reasonable. Giving an organ to someone that will die 6 month earlier without that organ is medically reasonable. Giving an organ to someone that has greater chances of survival and retention of the organ is medically reasonable. Giving an organ to someone because he has an organ donor card might be morally reasonable, but medically unreasonable if the other factors point towards giving the organ to someone else. And since the culmination of all the factors that doctors should consider rarely if ever gives the same numbers, there is rarely if ever a reason for a doctor to even ask that question.

### Human: CMV: "You can't love another until you learn to love yourself" is a bullshit platitude.### Assistant: The idea is that you are never going to have a healthy relationship or be a healthy partner if you're not a healthy person. Insecurities and personal issues, if they're not dealt with, lead to conflict in relationships. You can't have a healthy partnership if you have personal issues that you refuse to work on because they will bleed into your relationship.### Human: >The idea is that you are never going to have a healthy relationship or be a healthy partner if you're not a healthy person. But that simply isn't true. Depressed people find partners. Hell, people with serious substance abuse problems or histories of trauma find partners. Having "issues" doesn't render you incapable of giving love. As for conflict, most relationships experience conflict at least from time to time. The longer you're together, the more turmoil you can expect to weather as a couple.### Assistant: Having issues absolutely doesn't render you incapable of giving love, but having personal issues *that you are not actively trying to fix* often leads to problems within the relationship. These problems aren't limited to an "inability to love" your partner; these problems can include trust issues, jealousy, doubting that your partner loves you, etc. Absolutely couples experience conflict from time to time. But conflict has to be overcome. If you are not working on improving yourself, you can't move past your issues.### Human: There are some issues that people will never overcome but that doesn't mean they can't have good relationships. There are some mental illnesses that can't be fixed. Doesn't mean people with them can't have healthy relationships.### Assistant: It definitely doesn't mean they can't have good relationships, but unresolved personal issues time and time again cause serious relationship problems. Mental illnesses or personal issues don't have to be "fixed" to be in a healthy relationship, but you do have to be willing to work on them in some capacity if they're influencing your relationship.

### Human: CMV:Women have the societal advantage over men in developed countries like the USA and Canada.### Assistant: to clarify, you are speaking of affirmative action and female only grants correct? The reason these are policies where women are given priority or gain specific benefits is because systems like this are extremely slow to change, and using incentives like this ideally encourage employers to hire women despite potentially holding bias. My sister received a grant to go into a welding program, and got in quite fast. That was great! She spent most of the program being bullied by her exclusively male classmates, had one teacher consistently criticize women welders in front of the class, and my sister was on the verge of dropping out due to the emotional stress despite having good grades. These incentives help make it easier to overcome the challenges that women still face with traditionally male institutions, because despite what the law says, people's biases don't change overnight.### Human: I realized I forgot to answer your question. In Canada, certain publicly funded jobs have to have a certain percentage of women. The ones that come to mind are police, fire and paramedics.### Assistant: If you picked a random individual from one of those jobs are they more likely to be male or female?### Human: Why is that relevant? Nursing and primary school teaching are female dominated, so what? A lot of it is just the fact that most women don't want to be firefighters, nothing wrong with that.### Assistant: Well if you want to get into any of these jobs with a quota then it's still statistically more advantageous to be a man than a women.### Human: You can't spin it both ways. I feel like since discrimination exists on both sides, it would be better for everyone in general if affirmative action for genders was done away with (I say as a male computer science student).

### Human: CMV: The U.S. is too big for one government, and should be broken up into smaller countries.### Assistant: You're essentially describing states. The only things that keep the situation now from resembling what you describe (though I think we're as close a practically possible to what you describe with the current system) are the upswing of federal power, the general incompetence of present state governments and heavy gerrymandering of electoral districts. Splitting up into separate countries wouldn't solve the problem because contrary to the "Red State-Blue State" narrative, America isn't really divided by geographical lines. If we actually broke the blue and red down to individual towns and cities, you wouldn't have to back up too far before it started looking purple. So breaking up into separate countries really won't resolve that many ideological conflicts, and it *will* introduce inevitable regional conflicts between Balkanized countries. How long before the Country of Michigan decides that it's economic problems can best be solved by raiding New York? How long before two countries in the west start wars over water or grazing rights? What happens when bread basket countries extort richer ones by withholding food? History suggest that those conflicts are inevitable. That highlights a disunity that, even if it never actually turned into open conflict) would absolutely hamstring American economic and diplomatic power. From an economic perspective, we lose the ability to bargain and act as one powerful unit, which means that each country is vulnerable to exploitation by 'foreign' powers. All in all, it wouldn't just hurt the US; the fracturing of arguably the most stable and lucrative economy on the planet would be a loss for the whole world. A US housing crisis caused a worldwide recession, imagine what a tectonic fracture of that economy would do. Diplomatically, you need to be realistic. As much as their is to decry about US foreign policy, there are other powers in the world that would be far worse as a global hegemons. Again, bad for most of the world.### Human: > Splitting up into separate countries wouldn't solve the problem because contrary to the "Red State-Blue State" narrative, America isn't really divided by geographical lines. I don't believe in the "red state - blue state" narrative either. I think that true political opinion across the country is more nuanced and is obfuscated by a first-past-the-post electoral system that almost invariably leads to two parties. On a national level, this almost guarantees that the large political parties are not going to be a true representation of the majority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). It seems that if there were regional governments that adopted a more representative electoral system we would see that there really are regional political differences. The politics might still be contentious, but I doubt they would be contending about the same issues we are nationally at the moment. > How long before two countries in the west start wars over water or grazing rights? What happens when bread basket countries extort richer ones by withholding food? History suggest that those conflicts are inevitable. True, but why not apply the same logic to Canada and Mexico, and argue that we should unify with them? It seems like that's just an appeal the the status quo... > From an economic perspective, we lose the ability to bargain and act as one powerful unit, which means that each country is vulnerable to exploitation by 'foreign' powers. All in all, it wouldn't just hurt the US; the fracturing of arguably the most stable and lucrative economy on the planet would be a loss for the whole world. and > Diplomatically, you need to be realistic. As much as their is to decry about US foreign policy, there are other powers in the world that would be far worse as a global hegemons. Again, bad for most of the world. Pax Americana... It essentially seems like this is an argument to sustain the current supremacy of the United States in world affairs, and that to not keep the U.S. in the dominant position is to invite disaster from the rest of the world. We have to dominate for everyones own good. This seems like an updated version of the "White Man's Burden" argument, and I'm just not sure I'm buying it either... > A US housing crisis caused a worldwide recession, imagine what a tectonic fracture of that economy would do. Just to refer to my OP: > I’d like to talk about what the ideal situation would be, not the nitty gritty of how it would be implemented bureaucratically or technically. To CMV, you should tell me why this would not be the ideal situation should we be able to implement it successfully.### Assistant: I mean...if you want to talk about a hypothetical that's completely divorced from reality, that's okay. I just don't know why you'd want to do that. At a point, you're just saying "I want to talk about how this is a good idea as if nothing would go wrong." That's not a fair way to frame the conversation. At some point, you need to incorporate probable consequences of the plan in your assessment of it. >I think that true political opinion across the country is more nuanced and is obfuscated by a first-past-the-post electoral system that almost invariably leads to two parties. On a national level, this almost guarantees that the large political parties are not going to be a true representation of the majority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). It seems that if there were regional governments that adopted a more representative electoral system we would see that there really are regional political differences. The politics might still be contentious, but I doubt they would be contending about the same issues we are nationally at the moment. Regional concerns are what state governments are for. Why would governments slightly larger than states do a better job than current state governments? Your acting as if the best solution to a flawed electoral system is to dismantle the country. Why not just change the electoral system? And if your response is "that's currently impossible", then I invoke your *"I’d like to talk about what the ideal situation would be, not the nitty gritty of how it would be implemented bureaucratically or technically"*. In this regard, I think you're picking a solution that doesn't relate to the problem. Why would these regional governments function more effectively than current state governments? Why would they be more effective than national government now? It appears that you rely on the assumption that they will be "more representative", but that isn't the current case in state governments is it? Aren't they selected from a specific region? It seems that the common problem in state and national government is electoral, not geographic. So you perceive a problem (electoral inefficacy) which has a solution (electoral reform) but you mistakenly conclude that the best way to achieve that solution is to split the country arbitrarily by region. >True, but why not apply the same logic to Canada and Mexico, and argue that we should unify with them? It seems like that's just an appeal the the status quo... War of 1812. Mexican-American War. Our early relations with both of those countries were less than amicable and we've had hundreds of years to iron out economic and diplomatic relations. We were never unified with them, so all of our institutions have developed under the assumption that three separate nations and cultures exist. Things are calm now because it's advantageous for both of those countries to ride the American train. Compare that to the present-day US. Every institution we have is built for and relies on a unified economic structure with relatively uniform law and trade regulations. If you break that up, something new has to form and history tells us that that will result in conflict. You can dismiss this if you want, but it's an inherent cost of what you propose. Moreover, it will be a continuous problem as long as those countries exist. If Colorado and New Mexico have a water dispute, the Federal government settles it through nationally recognized courts. If the Republic of Colorado and the Empire of Enchantment have a trade dispute...they both have the prerogative to throw down and attack each other if they reach an impasse. >Pax Americana... It essentially seems like this is an argument to sustain the current supremacy of the United States in world affairs, and that to not keep the U.S. in the dominant position is to invite disaster from the rest of the world. We have to dominate for everyones own good. This seems like an updated version of the "White Man's Burden" argument, and I'm just not sure I'm buying it either... You could see it that way, but it misses the point. Fracturing the US will remove the dominant diplomatic, political, economic and military power from the world and replace it with a disunited collection of temporarily wealthy/powerful states. That will have three immediate effects: A) everyone who benefited from the US economically will take a hit. That means China, Europe and...well every country to which the US gives foreign aid. B) Every thing the US does for international relations will disappear. The UN would likely become much more important, but would also have a much smaller budget. The US Navy would stop securing...most of the ocean (worst case, coastal states in the US take control of those fleets and start charging protection money). C) The whole world will be less stable. This would be true of any hypothetical where you arbitrarily remove *the* global power at any point in history; whether you're talking about Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the British Empire...all result in a scramble for power that usually ends in violence. The disappearance of the US from the scene would mean that other world powers with disaligned interests will vie for that power and it will likely increase conflict. We live in an era when the thought of a war between major powers is nigh-on unthinkable, why would creating a situation where it was likely be a good thing?### Human: Δ > So you perceive a problem (electoral inefficacy) which has a solution (electoral reform) but you mistakenly conclude that the best way to achieve that solution is to split the country arbitrarily by region. This is exactly what I was doing. The problem is not necessarily that the country is too big, but that the current electoral system does not do a very good job of adequately representing the will of the people (and therefore, in my mind, violates the basic social contract that the government gets it's authority to legislate by the consent of the governed). But it does not follow from that that the solution is to break up the country. It would be more reasonable to advocate for electoral reform. How to do that or whether that is practical is another question for another thread. My V is C'd, congrats!### Assistant: I'm glad I could help! And thank you for treating this sub exactly how it ought to be treated. Too many people come here without a truly open mind.

### Human: [Mod Post] Welcome to all new readers!### Assistant: Rest in peace, changemyview. We hardly knew ye.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: I believe the recent trend of re-releasing video games for next-gen systems is good for the industry and for the consumer.### Assistant: I can't argue the fact that some people are going to like this, because they are. But when you think about it is a very transparent money-grab with very little work involved. I'm a PC gamer, and I'm fortunate enough to have a self-built PC that runs all games on highest settings at 80-140 fps without a hitch. The idea to me that someone will buy a $60 game then buy it again for $60 only a year later just for higher res textures is insane. Other than the halo situation (where the game is a decade old) all the other games already had the high res textures created before the first edition sold in the first place, so the work required to re-market the game for the new console requires next to no work and still people line up by the hundreds to get it. But like I said, some people will still like it, and that is fine. But it is showing an extreme amount of greed that they still charge full price for them. Especially when they expect gamers to have already shelled out $60+30 for DLC of the previous edition. All together it won't be unheard of for people to have spent over $150 on a single player game which personally makes my head spin.### Human: But if you look at some of these games, like The Last Of Us, it comes with all the DLC, that's $35 right there. The game's $45, so in reality, you're paying $10 for a better, smoother experience. You can argue that someone who didn't buy the DLC in the first place probably wouldn't want it now, but it does aid with the value. Isn't it better to put it out there as an option for the people who want it, and those who don't can simply look the other way?### Assistant: > Isn't it better to put it out there as an option for the people who want it, and those who don't can simply look the other way? Why not just when a consumer buys a game, they have access to the high res texture version as well? When you buy a bluray it will often come with a dvd or a digital download of the standard def rip. Why not have it the same way for games? If you buy a game that is then linked to your XBL account, you have access to both the versions? This way you end up spending only 60 for the game and then however much the DLC is.### Human: While that suggestion would no doubt be preferable, at the end of the day, these remastrers/remakes aren't simple ports. The developers are working hard to make the changes necessary, such as running at 1080p @ 60 FPS, and optimizing the game for the new hardware. This process takes some time, in particular for the PS3 --> PS4, as the PS3's cell processor complicated things quite a bit. While I'm sure none of us would turn down free next-gen games that we own for the previous gen, at the end of the day, these are companies with employees to pay, and thus, releasing it at full-price is going to yield the most profit for them. The problem is a lot of people don't see the value, or point, at charging full price for the games. A lot of fans are insulted that they're asked to pay $60 for a game they paid $60 for last year. Fair enough. But if you don't see worth in the new features, or DLC - that's the point - you don't have to purchase it. As I stated before, I believe this targets 2 groups of people and nobody else. People who didn't play the original, and fans of the original who love the game enough to see the value in playing it at 1080p/60FPS over 720p/30FPS. Fans who want that extra DLC. Fans who appreciate the better graphics.### Assistant: > The developers are working hard to make the changes necessary, such as running at 1080p @ 60 FPS, and optimizing the game for the new hardware. This takes less than a quarter of the workload than developing a new game from scratch. Shouldn't that mean the price should reflect the workload involved? > While I'm sure none of us would turn down free next-gen games that we own for the previous gen, at the end of the day, these are companies with employees to pay, and thus, releasing it at full-price is going to yield the most profit for them. Yes, obviously. I don't contest that this practice is good for the developers, I've admitted they make a good amount of money from it. I'm challenging that it is good for consumers, the second claim of your CMV.### Human: Since it takes a lot less of the workload, I presume that's why companies like Naughty Dog have a much smaller team doing the remaster, while the majority works on Uncharted 4. As to how it benefits the consumer, it's simple. If it's something you have an interest in, then you're going to get it. I understand being completely satisfied with your PS3 purchase, but if you don't see the value in the added DLC, or better graphics, then you can stick with your PS3 version, no harm no foul. For Metro 2033 or Tomb Raider, perhaps at best you could argue that the quality doesn't reflect the necessity of a remake, and you'd be partially true. Tomb Raider hasn't even hit 0.50mil on the PS4. But for Grand Theft Auto V or The Last Of Us, wouldn't the only argument needed to justify their re-release lie in the tons of Game Of The Year awards, critical acclaim, and huge fanbase?### Assistant: > Since it takes a lot less of the workload, I presume that's why companies like Naughty Dog have a much smaller team doing the remaster, while the majority works on Uncharted 4. So if they have such a small team working on it, why don't they scale the price in the same way too? If you purchased a game for the 360, get the xbox one digital version for 15 dollars added? > As to how it benefits the consumer, it's simple. If it's something you have an interest in, then you're going to get it. I understand being completely satisfied with your PS3 purchase, but if you don't see the value in the added DLC, or better graphics, then you can stick with your PS3 version, no harm no foul. By this logic, why not make DLC cost $500? I mean if you don't want it you don't have to buy it. Those who are filthy rich and have that money to blow on a video game can. Is that "good" for consumers? Of course not. It is only good for the consumers if they scale the price down to reflect the actual workload they put it. Otherwise they are charging a high margin for very low added value which, supply chain 101, isn't good for the consumer. > But for Grand Theft Auto V or The Last Of Us, wouldn't the only argument needed to justify their re-release lie in the tons of Game Of The Year awards, critical acclaim, and huge fanbase? Re-releasing is fine like what I said. Its the price that isn't good for consumers.### Human: They don't scale the price because you're still getting the same content, the same quality, the same experience, except better. Well, let's look at the value they're adding. There's $35 worth of DLC on TLOU:R. That's not a ballpark,, there's 2 multiplayer DLC packs for $10 each, and a single-player DLC for $15. $35. Now strip that $35 from the $50 it costs, and they're asking $15 for double the framerate, a better resolution, better graphics, a developer commentary, a fully fleshed-out photo mode, and expanded audio settings. Personally, I don't think $15 is a whole lot to ask for that when you consider that a brand new game is $59.99### Assistant: > They don't scale the price because you're still getting the same content, the same quality, the same experience, except better. Come on, lets be real and skip the bs. They don't scale the prices because they don't have to. People will pay it. That is the only thing that matters to them. If they could charge $100 for it and have a million people line up to pay that price that is what they would charge. > Well, let's look at the value they're adding. There's $35 worth of DLC on TLOU:R. That someone could have already payed for on the previous system. > Now strip that $35 from the $50 it costs, and they're asking $15 for double the framerate This is just more BS. Gamers don't pay for games because of the framerate. They pay for hardware for the framerate. Imagine buying a PC game and having it tell you in game "You are currently playing at 20 fps. If you want to play at 60 fps, that costs $15 extra." Gamers already pay through the nose for expensive hardware to play at good framerates. Pretending like they should have to buy more expensive versions of games just to use those extra frames is ridiculous. > a better resolution Same as above. > better graphics That were already designed and implemented in the PC versions of the games. > and expanded audio settings Wow. Publishers really are hitting rock bottom. > Personally, I don't think $15 is a whole lot to ask for that when you consider that a brand new game is $59.99 Except its not $15. Its $50. You are assuming they didn't already purchase the DLC with the previous copy of the game.### Human: If players purchased any of the core DLC pre-PS4 version, yes, it does become harder to justify, and in that case, I could see it as much more of a cash-grab. But you have to admit that the flip side is true - the $35 in DLC sells a lot of the game for someone coming from PS3 who didn't experience the DLC the first time around.### Assistant: If it were good for the consumers at all if you payed for the DLC the first time around you would still have access to it if you payed a small fee for the new console version.

### Human: I think women who lie about their birth control status should be charged with rape. CMV### Assistant: Rape, not so much I don't think. But fraud, or one of any types of laws that have to do with dishonest dealings would be acceptable to me. Additionally, if that was the pretense, and a pregnancy ensued, perhaps lack of legal responsibility for the child? I realize the flaw in this is that many men would want to be a part of their child's life post-fact, but if given the choice beforehand, would opt out of having a child. It's a tough question, and generally unenforceable without some sort of contract. Otherwise it is literally he-said she-said. "She told me she was on Birth Control." "Prove it."### Human: Many people have said that it is rape if the sex is under false pretenses. When a man does it, everyone calls it rape. When a woman does it, everyone says "hold on here, its not really *rape*".### Assistant: Assange is wanted in Sweden for rape for not wearing a condom, this is the same thing from the other side of the coin, I must say, I agree with you OP.### Human: No, he's wanted for having sex with her without a condom WITHOUT HER CONSENT WHILE SHE WAS SLEEPING. If a woman had sex with a man without birth control WHILE HE WAS SLEEPING that would be rape.### Assistant: [No it wouldn't be.](http://i.imgur.com/40ssAFW.jpg)### Human: This is a purely technical/language distinction for research on the part of the CDC. While a don't agree with it, since the word rape carries heavier connotations, a woman raping a man is not actually treated as less serious, "forced to penetrate" is still the moral equivalent of "forced penetration". Similarly in the UK it's called "sexual assault" rather than rape when a woman forces a man to penetrate her, but this carries the same prison sentence as a man penetrating a woman. (Anal penetration of a man is also still "rape").### Assistant: >a woman raping a man is not actually treated as less serious Do you have any proof of this? I have lots of proof to the contrary. In particular (not proof, but I really want an excuse to post it), this gem from a fellow redditor, who claims, essentially, "it's okay because the boy was asking for it" http://i.imgur.com/bKuRgE6.png And I'll be frank with anybody else who reads this (I do not think I will be convincing /u/hungerartist_ of anything), if male rape was taken seriously, we would not: 1. Joke about how often men get raped in prison. OHHH HE DROPPED THE SOAP!! 2. We would not think it is hilarious or sexy when a woman rapes a man "Ohhh he's getting lucky tonight!" 3. We would not say "Nicee......" when a woman, especially when she is physically attractive, rapes a boy. There is mounds upon mounds of evidence of our society pervasively being okay with this. There is also mounds upon mounds of evidence of the data which shows this being actively suppressed. This is a problem. **It is not okay.** And it is only getting worse. The good news is that we, the millennial, are not putting up with this bullshit any longer. Every day more people are informed. A year ago this question would not have sparked the conversations it is now. Don't let anybody tell you it isn't as bad, or it isn't a big deal, or it doesn't happen, or any other excuse - because **every victim matters.**### Human: Are you trying to argue that men being raped is treated as less serious than women being raped?### Assistant: Yes. As a result, people who don't know how to deal with the assault go untreated, and perpetrators go unpunished.### Human: Well, I would agree with your last sentiment but I would disagree with the premise that it is taken less seriously for one gender than for another. I would posit that rape on the whole is not taken seriously.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Well I base it off of how people communicate the seriousness of rape committed by both genders. It seems to me that rape is not considered serious, regardless of who is committing this. Obviously I understand that this is purely anecdotal, the only data I have is based on male on female rape anyway (in which the rape isn't taken very seriously). Moreover, the OP isn't asking for female on male rape to be taken seriously, he is asking for deception to be counted as rape. Myself, and many other posters in this thread it would seem, consider there to be a pretty big difference.### Assistant: sorry about that, it seems my reply stuck to the wrong comment somehow... i am certain i clicked the correct one, the comment i was attempting to reply to was someone saying that krosen333 hates women.... edit: found the comment i was looking for, will delete and move there### Human: Ha no worries, I was confused but I thought i should answer your question anyway.### Assistant: s'all good, side note, do you like ducks? and what is your favorite kind of pizza?### Human: I do indeed like ducks and my favourite pizza is some sort of chicken and bacon pizza. :)### Assistant: i have just tagged you as "excellent taste"### Human: Haha aw thanks!### Assistant: any time :D

### Human: CMV: I have no responsibility to "do anything" or "say anything" in response to the Ferguson controversy.### Assistant: When something will affect you negatively, it won't affect others personally. They won't have a reason to care about what's happening to you, your family, or your demographic. You are claiming to only support or oppose issues that involve your race and economic status. Now, you never HAVE to do anything, but I'm just saying that people going through terrible stuff right now need all the support they can get if anything is to change. You choose to do nothing, and it conveys that you have no problem with structural racism.### Human: ∆ My focus on duty or "having" to do something was way too narrow. It is about responsibility, and I guess it doesn't have to be specifically about Ferguson or climate change or bankers' bonuses or the Euro debt crisis so long as I am caring about humanity around me.### Assistant: I agree with your original stance OP, but this didn't CMV, so I'll tell you why. This may come off as sounding like a continuum fallacy (?) but what you seem to have agreed to is 'I won't rest until everyone in the world is as well off as me'. It's a fine sentiment, but so impractical that it would cripple the life of anyone who bought into it.### Human: But that is taken to the extreme, just like the "I only care about myself" is. There is a good middle ground between those with you having empathy for other people, and helping them when you can/want to. So in this instance you (as OP) is personally far removed from the Ferguson situation, and as such you don't understand why you should have empathy/support the people involved in the Ferguson situation. If you were going through something horrible, would you appreciate it if someone showed empathy/support or helped you out, regardless of their "likeness" to you/your situation? That is basically something central about empathy, you see that other peoples suffering can be somewhat alleviated by an action you take -> I would be extremely thankful if I was in that situation and someone did something for me.### Assistant: Very true. But there are so many causes in the world, and you can't possibly help with all of them. So what makes Ferguson special? If you are as personally invested in Ferguson as you are with the Ebola outbreak in Africa, why do you have a responsibility to do something about Ferguson and not Ebola? Not saying you shouldn't give aid to either; I just think that when it comes to getting involved with causes that one isn't personally involved in, everyone has the right to choose their own.### Human: Never said everyone has to support "my" cases, OP made it seem like he wasn't giving aid to either. In fact, the main point of his post was basically "doesn't hurt me, don't see why I should care"### Assistant: Okay, fair enough. To rephrase: OP's original position was that they had no responsibility to give aid to Ferguson in particular; I'm agreeing with him on the grounds that I don't think anyone has a *responsibility* to give to any specific cause that doesn't effect them (although it would certainly be nice if more people did). In other words, I think it's okay to praise people for being selfless, but not being selfless is not the same thing as being self*ish*, and as such shouldn't be scorned.

### Human: CMV: It's okay for parents to buy alcohol for for their teenage children as long as they are responsible adults and supervise the consumption### Assistant: I don't know about broad rules, but I would tell you how I handle my own kids. When they start highschool I'll show them my still. I'll teach them the basic science, let them help me make a batch, and then I'll say that they can drink only what they make themselves and they can't take any of it out of the house. If I just buy them alcohol the only thing they learn is how to drink. Quite frankly, I don't think that's good enough. Why aim low when I use alcohol as an incentive to learn? Come on it's science, a skill that makes them indispensable in any apocalypse you care to name, and way to discourage drinking the wrong stuff in the wrong time/place. They'll learn the right way to drink this way as well. While I intend to do something similar, I think that merely buying alcohol for your own kids is largely unnecessary and might interfere with the parenting decisions effecting my kid's friends.### Human: Comment Rule 1: Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view### Assistant: I disagree with the notion that you should *buy* your children alcohol. I agree with the notion that your children should experience alcohol they make for themselves. These are very different concepts.### Human: So your argument focuses on self-sufficiency more so than alcohol control? Would you refuse to buy your kids other luxury goods (nice pastries, nice clothes, etc), in hopes that they will learn to make them themselves?### Assistant: My argument focuses on understanding, not just how to drink but what alcohol really is, why it is used, and how it is made. There's a lot of culture, history, and science bound up in our relationship with drinks. There are some cooking, crafts, writing, and music exercises that I'm working on as well.### Human: I'm fascinated that your relationship with alcohol goes so deep/complex. For me I just like being buzzed -- and I don't really see a problem with that.### Assistant: If that's all it is for my kids, then that's fine as well. Things are about as deep/complex as you let them be, I just don't like it when people miss out because no one took the effort to show them that there is more.### Human: I can relate, because I enjoy music. I listen to music, I hear every instrument going, I hear the vocalist singing/yelling. Most people simply enjoy hearing music. I enjoy music partly because I also write music. I hear what people have done and if I enjoy THAT song, I will in turn be inspired from that. When I have children, I don't want them to be limited to just hearing music, but making music that they enjoy as well. It will give a deeper understanding as to what music is. However, as you have stated; if it is not in my children to also write music as I do, then I see no problem with them not doing that.

### Human: CMV: I believe "baby boomers" had it incredibly easy and we (20-30 year olds) are now suffering as a result of their mistakes/advantage taking.### Assistant: **Attempt at CMV:** I would say that while the baby boomer generation had a much clearer, simpler, and more accessible path to a stable career, they had very limited options for economic success *other* than go to college and grab that job in town. Interstate and international travel then is nothing like what it is today. Also, this is mostly for white people. Non-white Americans, especially black Americans, were still facing massive civil rights abuses. Those abuses are still around today, but it's different, and I'd hazard that it is a lot better, too. Edit via /u/jonathan88876 : women and LGBT also had and have struggles that are better today than before. Edit via /u/deathtoferenginar : I may be overselling the the interstate travel. With significantly lower rent and more accessible lower paid entry jobs, it was probably easier to move town to town (still, nomadic life is tough). Your statement here can be broadened: >Obviously I understand that we have a lot of other things easier so I am not talking about things like access to Internet or entertainment. That access, along with access to travel, gives us huge potential for economic success that would literally freeze a young entrepreneur from the 1950s with shock & wonder. Edit: Other redditors have also brought up Vietnam which I cannot believe I forgot. Holy cow, the Vietnam era took a huge toll. Nothing like our current Global War on Terror (in terms of domestic upheaval). **Some real-talk:** All that said, I am a 20-something looking for full time work too and have a lot of bad feelings toward the BB generation. I do not want to be a business owner or make a start-up. I have witnessed that, seen the stress, and would much prefer a different path in life. Further, I can't believe how greedy, short sighted, and reckless the BB generation got. But I place that mostly in their political choices of the 1970s onward, the shift from equal opportunities and representative government that "can do" into the deregulation spiral that we are still riding (from union busting to letting wall street do whatever it wants). **Desperate plea to help me make a healthier America:** While this isn't part of the CMV, I want to take a moment and explain the long-term solution to preventing this kind of pattern from happening again that is *completely available*: Call your Congressional Representative. You can find who that person is and their office phone number here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Many people tell me, "Congress doesn't care about me, though!" They are right, Congress (as a whole) does not give two craps about you, but *your* Congressional Representative **loves** you. Further, the staff in those offices actually, truly care about representing you to the best of their ability (most have standing private sector offers with salaries doubling or more their gov't pay). The truly corrupt person in those offices is a rarity, not the rule. So why does the government fail at representing us so badly? Because we don't tell the government (specifically and especially the House of Representatives) what to do. The average House office hears from less than 5% of their constituents, which is up from 3% pre-internet/email ubiquity. That leaves 95% of their oath-bound duty to guesswork. That's really crappy. We can do better. Worse, that 95% guesswork leaves a power vacuum that *allows* monied interests and party leadership to step in. Without that vacuum, monied interests and party leadership would have significantly less power. Calling your Congressional Rep. can take anywhere from just 3 minutes if you know what you're doing to 20+ minutes if you've got some really cool really applicable ideas and the staffer has time. So: 1 - Call your Rep. 2 - Identify yourself as a constituent. The staffer will most likely ask for your address to verify that you are in-district, this is OK! 3 - Let the staffer know that you would like to politely express your views on X, Y, and Z. 4 - When the staffer gives you the go-ahead or transfers you to a different person who covers those issues, let them know what is on your mind. This is how U.S. democracy is supposed to function. No Washington or super-monied interest corruption has touched the basic structure of constituents speaking with their Representatives. It is pure, it works, and we as a People aren't using it. So, I don't care if your political views are polar opposites of mine to the point that we'd get into a bar brawl if we spoke about them --- as one 20-something who has been stuffed by the BB generation to another, pick up your phone and CALL THAT OFFICE. I'd be happy to say a lot more on that subject in this thread or in a private message, but I think that this wall of text is long enough. Peace and be well, brother or sister, we'll make it because we don't have any other option.### Human: > I do not want to be a business owner or make a start-up Was this attitude prevalent amongst the BB generation as well? If we have an excess of labor, wages go down and unemployment goes up. Without people adapting, we will see horrid conditions. But am I wrong to suggest our generation should shoulder some of the blame? It is easy to say, "my dad walked into a bank at 18, and got a job. Now he's the manager making great money. I don't get those opportunities." But why should you? If other people are more qualified, coupled with a labor abundance, it will naturally be more competitive. Why shouldn't you be the guy who opens a business and creates opportunities? It is just my opinion, but it seems to me most of today's youth have been conditioned to instant gratification, high expectations for entertainment, and waiting for it all to come to them. Work becomes tedious and boring before they even try to get good at it. This toxic attitude of entitlement and apathy is contributing to our current situation. I can acknowledge that many economic policies are out of our control, and they do dictate the environment for work and business, but you can't complain and wait for things to change. It may require you working a job you don't like or learning a skill you didn't necessarily want to, but it is healthier than the alternative. We are seeing the consequences of poor economic policy that favor the rich, bit not all BBs are or were rich. So what does it come down to? Ambition, or lack thereof. Besides, you don't think our kids are going to be paying for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the quantitative easings that just kick the can further down the road? Get real. The same things we complain that our parents let happen are the same things we are letting happen. Gandhi said it best: be the change you want to see. If you can't get past that step, you have no right to haphazardly blame others.### Assistant: Here is one key difference: hiring managers in the 1960s/70s/80s and maybe the early 90s were inclined to hire people locally. The improvements in telecommunications, and developments in other countries, mean that in Year 2000+, every job that's not physically strapped down - like mowing lawns - is being sent from first world countries to the third/forth world as quickly as possible, by short-time-preference managers who say "Well, our competitors are doing it, so we don't have a choice". First world labor is getting maliciously fucked by this trend: white, black, male, female, gay and straight.. it's an equal opportunity destroyer. It does tend to hit the young more than the old, since the old are in the management positions, and they - strangely - never seem to outsource their own jobs. Automation/robotics has been taking its toll as well: there's a factory making like 100,000 cans of soda a day with 15 employees; 40 years ago, they would have probably had 150. etc. I am not advocating any specific solution - I don't think there is any good one - just pointing out the trends.### Human: If people can do a job just as well for less, it's stupid if the employer doesn't take advantage. The world is constantly evolving. If you don't, then expect to be left behind. If you don't have a unique skill then where is your value? It is easy to blame others while ignoring all the hard work they put in to improve their lives. I believe too many of the youth already have a good life without hard work, so they have unrealistic expectations. Put yourself in the employer's shoes: why should they hire you?### Assistant: In the short term, it is totally rational for senior managers to outsource everything. The blowback - which even Henry Ford understood 110 years ago - hits in the medium/longer-term, when domestic unemployment increases / the middle class collapses, and drags down demand for all goods along with it.### Human: And what social responsibilities do these companies/managers actually have? They certainly don't have to hire you or anyone else.### Assistant: This is a kind of a tragedy of the commons. Each individual company benefits by outsourcing everything they can, but when all the companies are doing it it then you have domestic economic problems in the long run, and unless these companies can compete internationally it ultimately comes back to hurt them. Strictly speaking they have no social responsibilities to hire locally, but if they want to focus on the long term over the short term it's in the interest of most companies to do so.

### Human: CMV: Choosing a college major based mainly on it's earnings potential is better than choosing a major you're interested in, but has a bad job market.### Assistant: I like to look at college majors like I look at superpowers in comics and TV shows. They're only as good as the person who has them. I can't stand the classic Spider-Man villain Sandman because he has no creativity and lacks vision. His power makes him near immortal and gives him nearly unbound potential for shape shifting. But what does he mostly do? "Hey what if I made my fist really big and tried to punch Spider-Man with it." In a similar vein, putting your college degree to good use is a skill that requires a little creativity and planning. You can get a degree in almost anything and become someone who works at an office doing administrative work, it's all about how you present the skills you have and how willing you are to develop new ways of doing things. Are there jobs that require certain majors? Yes, but those aren't the only well-paying jobs out there. What is most important from a job perspective is gaining some experience working and learning how to sell yourself to potential employers.### Human: But what if those potential employers just don't exist? If the job market is really so bad that there are almost no jobs available in that career, shouldn't you just go for something you like a bit less but that pays more?### Assistant: What I mean is that you can look outside of your major's "career path" to find a whole plethora of jobs. Most people I know aren't working directly in their major, but still use a lot of the skills they got with their degree. My wife got a degree in sociology, she's a Kindergarden teacher. Her degree helps inform her day to day job, and she got that job because she was able to sell herself as someone who could do it (well that and a teaching certificate). I'm not saying that any Bachelor's degree opens up literally everything you could ever want to do. But having the degree does open a lot of doors to high paying and quality careers. And yes, you will likely be doing something you like a bit less if that's your kind of lifestyle.### Human: So what's stopping someone from just taking the better paying degree? If you get a degree you love but your job ends up being unrelated, why not just take the better paying degree you equally like? Is it worth taking the huge gamble on getting that career you love?### Assistant: Nothing is stopping someone from just taking the better paying degree other than personal choice and edification. If I would rather spend my studying years studying something I really love like Russian Literature then that's my prerogative. If I want to raise a family and eat then I have to find a career that affords me those goals while probably making some compromises in how I spend my time. Some people prioritize life differently, and I don't see what the problem with that is. > Is it worth taking the huge gamble on getting that career you love? Is it a huge gamble? My brother dedicated a lot of time to becoming an athlete when he was a child and through college. Then an injury knocked him out of the running for his passion and now he's a personal trainer. He's using the skills he gained reaching for his dream to live the kind of life he wants to live. Was it *practical* to focus so much on a sport? No. But did he make it work? Yes. With enough gumption (and resources to help you with your resume) you should be able to turn almost any major into a list of skills that will help you work in a practical field. So what's the downside of this "gamble"? Working a job you didn't really like to begin with. That's the status quo if you go the path you're advocating. If there's something you're really passionate about you're sure as hell never going to get a career doing it without at least trying. Edit: I would be willing to bet that most people living in poverty aren't in that situation because they choose the wrong major in college.### Human: ∆ I guess you can't just assume there's no jobs in the field you want to go into. If you try, you may be able to convince someone to hire you. Still confused as to where you would go if it failed. Wouldn't you end up in a job you don't like anyways?### Assistant: Yes you would, but why not take a risk on something you really want to do if the consequences of failing are the same as not taking the risk in the first place? Most people wind up in a job they don't like, so I don't see why we can't reach for the stars while we can and then accept that not everyone makes it.### Human: What if the higher paying degree had a job you liked more than the "alternative" job from the degree you wanted to get?### Assistant: Sometimes people take risks that don't pay off. Playing everything as safe as possible isn't the only way to get through life.### Human: [removed]### Assistant: Sorry Pentacat, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 5\. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, 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=Pentacat+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4ph4lk/cmv_choosing_a_college_major_based_mainly_on_its/d4lsph3\))

### Human: CMV: Super Smash Bros Brawl is underrated while SSB Melee is placed on a golden pedestal.### Assistant: You are coming at it from the perspective of a casual smasher. On an objective level in the eyes of a competitive gamer, Brawl is simply not as good a *competitive* game in comparison to the sub-systems, depth, speed, and complexity of Melee. The closest analogy I can get to describing these two games is that Melee is an Olympic swimming pool with with a diving board and enough room to use any type of stroke. Going from Melee to playing Brawl is going from swimming in that Olympic pool into a 3 foot deep, kiddie pool of jello. Yea, you can kinda try to do a breast stroke, but you sometimes randomly trip if you try to do a back stroke. Jello pools are a novelty, but it wears off after you realize how much slower you swim in it. Simply put far more people *passionately* enjoy the Melee experience than there are those who feel the same way about Brawl. >It really seems like Brawl is in the same position. With the huge install base the Wii had, its not unlikely in 5 more years for millions of people who grew up on the Wii to celebrate Brawl, their first Smash game. Melee had its largest event ever *this* year, 13 years after it's release. The dedicated crowd that made the *Smash Bros. Documentary*, donated $100k to charity, and fly around the world to compete are not going to do that for Brawl. They have either moved on to Project:M or gone back to playing Melee. > Melee's tournament play was rife with wavedashing, and therefore only tolerated lightweight characters. Brawl on the other hand was tolerant of all weight classes, as well as both slower and faster playstyles. This is just your lack of knowledge of what is competitively viable. Here is a list of Top 8 from the biggest national events for both Melee and Brawl this year. Melee | Brawl ---|--- 1. Mang0 (Fox)|Nairo (Meta Knight) Hungrybox (Jigglypuff/Falco/Fox)| ZeRo (Meta Knight) Armada (Peach/Young Link)|ESAM (Ice Climbers, Pikachu) PPMD (Falco/Marth)|Mew2King (Meta Knight) Mew2King (Marth/Sheik) | Ally (Snake, Meta Knight) Axe (Pikachu)| ADHD (Diddy Kong) Fly Amanita (Ice Climbers)| Tyrant (Meta Knight) Silent Wolf (Fox/C. Falcon)|Vinnie (Ice Climbers) Both games trend toward light characters, with only one heavyweight character(C. Falcon/Snake) being picked by top 8 players. >Brawl had a better set of characters...it really feels like the newer characters had newer strategies other than basic beat-down like the Melee characters. This is only personal preference. I prefer the way the entire Melee cast plays to their Brawl counterparts. I also can't stress how many things were broken in Brawl and I don't even have to touch the can of worms that is Metaknight. Multiple characters had methods to stall under and offstage (Pit, MK, R.O.B, Charizard, etc.) without being reliably punished. Champions like DDD had easy d-throw chain grabs on half the cast at any percent. I believe Marth had infinite grab-release on Ness/Lucas. I could go on and on. Brawl had terrible character balance. > The reason why Brawl was cut from the MLG was because there was a newfound emphasis on shooter games like Halo 2 and COD which. Again you are pretty ignorant on the facts. Brawl got dropped because of [match-fixing](http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/10/pro-smash-players-banned-for-match-fixing/), lack of advertising, and people getting bored of timed-out MK dittoes. >I doubt if Melee came out in 2008, it would even get a slot for MLG tournaments. No, Melee came out in 2001 and it had a MLG slot literally [**2 months ago**](http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/66) >In result, Brawl suffered from hype backlash, of not being able to meet super-high expectations, whereas Melee didn't have to. Only point you made that is accurate. Us Melee players wanted a true successor to our favorite game and it felt like we were given a sack of shit. Project:M has gone a long way to redeem Brawl for some of us though. >But when we look at the games 10 years from now (or at least when a new generation of gamers do), we're going to compare them side by side as if they came out at the same time. This is a [match vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7IX18ccdY#t=51) from a Melee tournament last month. These people are this hype 13 years after a game has been released. Brawl will have its 10 year anniversary less than 3 years from now. I doubt it will even have a hype scene once Smash 4 is released.### Human: Kind of off-topic, but what are your thoughts on the upcoming Smash Bros?### Assistant: Friends of mine who put in time at the invitational and from what I've personally gleaned from Best Buy previews. Smash 4 is unfortunately going to be a sister of Brawl. Nintendo of America reps at the invitational basically confirmed to the people I know who went. NoA understands the value of a dedicated e-sports community, but "Smash 4 is Sakurai-sans game". They took their suggestions from the pro-smashers that competed, but there is basically no chance at this point of the changes Smash 4 would need to become a competitive game to happen. Sakurai's philosophic vision is antithesis to what facilitates competitive game design. He thinks that turning every stage into Final Destination with no items is what we want. And feels that just adding that mode should be enough to satisfy the competitive audience. Meanwhile, we are just looking at this trainwreck pulling up to the station wondering, "What about good gameplay, physics, and depth?". Ultimately, Smash 4 is not going to be the savior for the Wii-U. Consider that Mario Kart: Wii was their best selling game of with Wii's life cycle with 30 million copies sold out of the 100 million Wiis out there. Mario Kart 8 is sitting at 2.4 million copies sold on 6.9 million Wii-U units. Brawl sold 12 million copies on that same 100 million unit install base. They will get a bump in numbers, but nothing to accommodate the losses they are sustaining on Wii-U development. I imagine 3DS Smash 4 will end up outselling the console version by far. There are some feel good folks in the Smash community who want everybody to get along. People who realize they'll never be able to compete at a high level in Melee/Project:M. People who are tired of Brawl and just want to play the shiny new thing. I don't think it will be a complete flop, but I know I can't recommend a Wii-U to my circle of smash friends. Not when a better gaming experience can be had on cheap, old Nintendo hardware or on dolphin emulator.### Human: I find several flaws with your judgement of this game, mainly because: **A**.) That demo itself is not up to date, employees on the floor specifically stated that the game demo played was as least as old as april. To this end, the game most likely will have been polished to warrant a second thought. **B**.) The argument of "It doesn't *feel* like melee, so it's no good" falls apart when compared to **other** fighting game franchises. Street Fighter 4 most certainly does *not* feel like Third Strike in any way, which in turn is not the same as Street Fighter 2 Turbo, that didn't stop fans from flocking to the new installment as the standard; The same could be said of Tekken Tag to the earlier PS1 games, King of Fighters, or even the new Killer Instinct. While I most assuredly do not agree with the "adapt" crowd, it's easy to see where they're coming from with examples like those. **C**.) Don't blame Sakurai for something he didn't purposefully make. Melee was an accident, pure and simple, as much as the hardliner crowd grasps at the "bu-bu-but l-canceling in the debug menu" straws. On top of that, Smash itself is a *Party* game, not a *competitive* game, why would Brawl be the better seller despite being "less competitive"?### Assistant: >That demo itself is not up to date, employees on the floor specifically stated that the game demo played was as least as old as april. To this end, the game most likely will have been polished to warrant a second thought. I've seen the 3DS leaks, the frame data on landing lag still matches that of the Invitational demo build. Moreover, the subsystems that allow creativity in attacking and defense (crouch-cancelling, l-cancelling, light-shielding, etc.) aren't going to be added with a Japanese 3DS release in a week. Meanwhile, they are removing ledge hogging to further drag out games. There was noticeable throw lag that will limit punishes from grabs. My vision of a polished game doesn't just mean the graphics look shiny, I expect intuitive game design that will promote a good competitive atmosphere. >The argument of "It doesn't feel like melee, so it's no good" falls apart when compared to other fighting game franchises. Street Fighter 4 most certainly does not feel like Third Strike in any way, which in turn is not the same as Street Fighter 2 Turbo, that didn't stop fans from flocking to the new installment as the standard; The same could be said of Tekken Tag to the earlier PS1 games, King of Fighters, or even the new Killer Instinct. While I most assuredly do not agree with the "adapt" crowd, it's easy to see where they're coming from with examples like those. It doesn't fall apart when compared to other fighting franchises. Take the Street Fighter franchise. Turbo 2 was a good showing of the 2-D fighter genre. Yomi game design is centered around this kind Scissors vs. Paper/Paper vs. Rock dynamic. Turbo 2 had yomi-balance that centered around High/Low attack vs Block vs Throw vs Jump vs Projectile. Third Strike took the same High/Low vs Block vs Throw vs Jump vs Projectile *and enhanced that with* Ex-Attack vs. Parry vs. Leap Attacks vs. Air Parry. Now take Smash 64. It was something completely unique to the fighting genre with the win condition being getting your opponent off the stage. The Yomi balance now had to consider movement as an element. The chain of sub-systems might be something like this for Smash64 (Null movement vs Normal/Special vs. Aerial vs. Air-dodge vs. Projectile vs. Shield vs. Grab vs. Side-dodge vs. Movement) Melee took all the elements of Smash 64 and enhanced them. So now we get (Null movement vs Normal/Special vs. Aerial vs. Air Dodge vs. Projectile vs. Shield vs. Grab vs. Side-dodge vs. Movement) + (Crouch Cancel vs. Dash cancel grab vs. Movement^Wavedash vs. Movement^DashDance). Brawl wasn't a fluke as you say. Sakurai didn't like that there was a subset of competitive gamers who enjoyed the fast and complex gameplay. So he took what made Melee enjoyable to many and *removed* things that made it fun for casuals and competitive players alike. Brawl removed the entire (Crouch Cancel vs. Dash Cancel Grab vs. Movement^Wavedash vs. Movement^DashDance) section of the formula. All general mobility was nerfed because of the physics. Normal/Special attacks were nerfed because of the removal of L-canceling and decayed knockback. Air Dodges got buffed by being able to be used multiple times. Power shield became more lenient and less complicated without having to make decisions concerning light-shielding. All these things promote stagnant gameplay of small exchanges and turtling because the defensive options are so much more powerful than the offensive ones. Finally, he throws in the worst subsystem ever implemented in a fighting game called *tripping* where you are punished randomly for the *mundane action of moving your fucking character*. I have ran into Brawl players who tried to take the game seriously and competitively. They drove or flew from out of state to compete in a national event. They play through 6-7 Metaknights in pools, and in the final stock of the final set they trip into a F-smash or trip as they go in to punish a whiffed aerial and they get sent home because of some stupid RNG. > Don't blame Sakurai for something he didn't purposefully make. Don't misunderstand my wall of text for vitriol. If I ever had the chance to talk to Sakurai in person, I would thank him profusely for creating my favorite game of all time. I would tell him I've bought 8-9 copies of melee, 3 copies of brawl, 2 Wiis(for Project:M), 4 gamecubes, at least a dozen gamecube controllers at this point. Then I would tell him that I'm moving on if Smash 4 doesn't succeed as a competitive game.That I will not be purchasing multiple Wii-U and Smash 4 to host Smash Fests. That I understand that Nintendo thinks shallow gameplay will reach a wider audience but I simply don't think that is the case.### Human: > I've seen the 3DS leaks, the frame data on landing lag still matches that of the Invitational demo build. [This](http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2ekdzy/seems_as_if_nintendo_may_have_listened_to_our/) post would disagree with you, sir. > Moreover, the subsystems that allow creativity in attacking and defense (crouch-cancelling, l-cancelling, light-shielding, etc.) aren't going to be added with a Japanese 3DS release in a week. Custom moves say hi. If that doesn't add "creativity" as much as the accidental subsystems, I don't know what will. > It doesn't fall apart when compared to other fighting franchises. Take the Street Fighter franchise. Turbo 2 was a good showing of the 2-D fighter genre. Yomi game design is centered around this kind Scissors vs. Paper/Paper vs. Rock dynamic. Turbo 2 had yomi-balance that centered around High/Low attack vs Block vs Throw vs Jump vs Projectile. Third Strike took the same High/Low vs Block vs Throw vs Jump vs Projectile and enhanced that with Ex-Attack vs. Parry vs. Leap Attacks vs. Air Parry. Now take Smash 64. It was something completely unique to the fighting genre with the win condition being getting your opponent off the stage. The Yomi balance now had to consider movement as an element. The chain of sub-systems might be something like this for Smash64 (Null movement vs Normal/Special vs. Aerial vs. Air-dodge vs. Projectile vs. Shield vs. Grab vs. Side-dodge vs. Movement) Melee took all the elements of Smash 64 and enhanced them. So now we get (Null movement vs Normal/Special vs. Aerial vs. Air Dodge vs. Projectile vs. Shield vs. Grab vs. Side-dodge vs. Movement) + (Crouch Cancel vs. Dash cancel grab vs. MovementWavedash vs. MovementDashDance). Aaaaaaand you missed my point entirely. Perhaps I never explained it fully: Fighting game franchises change, that is certain. Tell me, if 3rd strike has the **most enhanced subsystem** of the Street fighters, why is it not at EVO as much as Street Fighter 4? > Brawl wasn't a fluke as you say. That's not what I said at *all*, dude. If anything, **Melee** was the fluke, because the subsystems were accidental. As I will say again, Smash is a *Party* Fighter, not a competitive fighter, by nature. Things like Tripping are no different than stepping on a bowser block in Mario Party, because, guess what, it's a game of chance. > Don't misunderstand my wall of text for vitriol. Don't fucking lie... You hate the newer smashes for their anti-skill mechanics, for not being Melee 2.0, for being **casual**. And, in turn, you *despise* Sakurai for backstabbing you loyal fighting game fans in the back, wishing another Yoshinori Ono (or the like, *anyone* who knows better game design) of the internet would come and crack the Wii U for another shot of Project M. You can believe that as much as you want, but don't fucking lie about it on a damn comment board. > That I understand that Nintendo thinks shallow gameplay will reach a wider audience but I simply don't think that is the case. Just because a game has fewer mechanics does not make it "shallow." More than *Half* of what you're seeing in a Melee match is all in the mind. The dash-dancing, l-canceling, and wave-dashing are all tools to help you play those mindgames. Just because the other games don't have those features, doesn't mean they're not competitive. I *highly* suggest you check [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_xG1Yg_QoM) video from Extra Credits, it has a breakdown of *why* fighting games are so niche and why, IMO, All smash games do a better job than most other fighting franchises. In conclusion, as I come to think about, I would probably shake *your* hand, sir, if I ever meet you. You are, in the grand scheme of things, just another fantastic part of a wonderful community I've come to know and love over the past year! **But**... I would then tell you and any other of the purist crowd to get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like your arguments are infallible and superior in every way if you want this community to grow.### Assistant: > This post would disagree with you, sir. It doesn't. No one analyzed any frame data from the video there compared to older builds.. Just a bunch of guys exhibiting confirmation bias. Even the highlighted gifs are inconclusive. Auto-cancels occurred in brawl when an aerial animation ended as you touched the ground concerning the Lucina and Shulk gifs. Charizard gif is just him air-dodging through the platform and rolling. >Tell me, if 3rd strike has the most enhanced subsystem of the Street fighters, why is it not at EVO as much as Street Fighter 4? 3rd strike isn't the most enchanced. I stopped at 3rd strike for the point of comparison. SF4 took the 3rd strike subsystems and fleshed them out even more. We kept EX meter and added a Ultra meter with variable Ultra selections. Parry was modified and made more punishable with the Focus attack sub-system and could be used to cancel specials using FADC. SF4 **added more depth** and is rightfully the most played SF game and deserves its tournament presence. Brawl was a regression of sub-systems and now has less national tournaments than P:M much less Melee. >As I will say again, Smash is a Party Fighter, not a competitive fighter, by nature. That's fine to say. But I will continue to enjoy Melee and Project:M competitively. I'm just not going to invest my personal resources and passion supporting games I don't enjoy competitively(Smash 4/Brawl) in my local Smash scene. >Don't fucking lie... You hate the newer smashes for their anti-skill mechanics, for not being Melee 2.0, for being casual. Don't cast aspersions on my character guy... I'm a grown ass man. Sakurai doesn't owe me a damn thing. If I'm disappointed that he can't produce content I enjoy anymore, it doesn't mean I hate the man. It just means I'm not going to give him my hard-earned money. I would love to have a conversation with him, get a real clear perspective on his vision of game design outside of what I've read from interviews. > I highly suggest you check this video from Extra Credits, it has a breakdown of why fighting games are so niche and why, IMO, All smash games do a better job than most other fighting franchises. It's a difficult problem to solve, but casuals will be casuals. Street Fighter 4(AE,USF4) have sold more than Brawl/Melee combined. Good gameplay stands on its own. You can't get good at SF4 unless you put time in the lab. If that is a disincentive to some people then maybe the genre isn't for them. > More than Half of what you're seeing in a Melee match is all in the mind. Guy. I'd be embarrassed if I went and checked my SD card to see how many hours I put into playing Brawl. I don't dislike games just because I don't give them the chance. That "half" you were talking about makes the difference in my enjoyment of match of Melee or a match of Brawl. For other people they can just have fun doing free for alls with items blowing people up randomly and Final Smashes that take up the entire map. This is my hell. It's boring. The most effective strategy is to camp at the side of stage or on ledge until a valuable item drops. I don't have fun doing it. I have fun 1v1, against someone as good as me, with no items either of us can use as a crutch. With skill or strategy being the determining factor of victory. I don't think I'm skilled if a pokeball drops near me and I get a pokemon that nukes the stage. I don't think I'm skilled if my opponent trips when they run in to punish my mistakes. > I would then tell you and any other of the purist crowd to get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like your arguments are infallible and superior in every way if you want this community to grow. My opinion and those of the competitive crowd are relevant in the discussion. particularly this thread where the title is *CMV:Super Smash Bros Brawl is underrated while SSB Melee is placed on a golden pedestal.* I'm not going to come pat the casuals on the head because they want me to like their game. Brawl was accurately critiqued by the community and Melee is most deservedly worthy of the praise it gets. Smash 4 is going to have the weakest sales of any Smash since 64. I want Nintendo to succeed. Appealing to the casuals during the Wii generation is what has led them to this point.

### Human: I believe universal public healthcare (no private health sector) is the only morally justifiable system. CMV### Assistant: Premise 1: healthcare is a resource or commodity that can, hypothetically, be bought and sold on a market. Premise 2: healthcare is absolutely essential to modern life. If I understand correctly, it is the combination of these two premises that is the basis of the argument that everyone should have equal access to healthcare, regardless of means. However, if I may introduce a third premise: Premise 3: there are many other such commodities meeting both (1) and (2), including food, water, clothing, energy, and housing. If single-payer healthcare is the only morally justifiable system, do the same arguments apply to other resources? Are single-payer universal clothing, housing, food, water, and energy the only morally defensible means of distributing those commodities?### Human: Exactly. Is (true) communism a good system? Perhaps. Does it work (when actually applied)? No.### Assistant: I wouldn't necessarily say communism "doesn't" work, but I'd agree that it *hasn't* worked. Could it possibly work? I think so, given certain huge changes, such as achieving true post-scarcity.### Human: Sorry, you are simply incorrect. I am open to opinions, but this is not something that you can successfully argue. Would you ever choose/decide to take a GOD AWFUL job, that makes you sweat and toil every single day, for the same "benefits" (as there is no pay) as a cushy, fun job? No. No rational living person would. This, combined with the lack of ability to prosper no matter how hard you worked, simply goes against humanity. CMV if you can... I love the idea, but unless we become mindless robots, there is no way society can function this way (regardless of resources).### Assistant: You realize that I said it could work in a post-scarcity society, right? As in, a society in which working to live is unnecessary?### Human: It could work in a post-scarcity society, but if we go to communism, we have to accept that we killed the best motivation for furthering technology.### Assistant: In a post-scarcity society, I don't think furthering technology would be the ultimate goal. Rather, enjoying life and living up to our moral, artistic, cultural, and philosophical potential.### Human: Maybe. No one knows what society will be like hundreds of years from now. Just think how different we are from the society 100 years ago.### Assistant: Yes, exactly.### Human: You know, at first, I was wondering what in the world you were on about. But i kept reading more of your posts and learning from you. I don't necessarily agree with you, but you've made me think and reflect, and for that, I want to say thank you.### Assistant: Alright then, thanks, I appreciate it. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to attempt to answer them.### Human: Well I saw you talk about a post-scarcity society. Is that an ideal that people actual perceive as plausible or even achievable, as far as you can tell?### Assistant: I'd consider it inevitable, in the long run, provided we don't extinct ourselves first.### Human: But how can that argument be plausibly made when you consider all of the personalized commodities? Or the commodities that are exceedingly expensive, such as PCs and video games, etc? Or cars? We obviously have a limited amount of resources, so how could we ever achieve post-scarcity?### Assistant: Post-scarcity means eliminating any meaningful limit to our resources. Cold fusion would be one way we might do so.### Human: So if there's no more interest in any type of advancement, what else is there? What's to stop people from becoming entirely docile and content with waking up to do nothing? I do that on weekends and can't wait for Monday. What becomes the point of education? How does post-scarcity account for population growth?### Assistant: Would you have literally no interest in doing anything creative or inventive with your time, if you could have the tools and knowledge to engage in any creative or inventive hobby you wanted? Do you think that the entire population would feel the same way?### Human: I do not believe most people are intrinsically motivated on their own as it is. I do not believe the majority of people would continue to work to better themselves without external motivation. This is a big topic we talk about in educational philosophy. Students have difficulty motivating themselves, so we have to fight to help them find that motivation. Learning for their own betterment does not come naturally for students. Schools are even trying to alleviate this by making it easier to pass. Many schools are making policies that make it impossible for students to score lower than X%, which to be honest exacerbates the problem. Speaking from first-hand experience, the majority of students would cease trying if you took away any external purpose to succeed.### Assistant: I didn't say anything about learning, or about self-betterment, I asked about having a creative or inventive hobby. Many people enjoy creating works of art or music or tinkering with electronics or cars or whatever, and would do so a lot more with their time if they didn't have constraints requiring them to work for money in order to live. If I didn't have to work, I would spend a lot more time on my creative hobbies (piano-playing and bonsai gardening). Do you have no such hobbies?### Human: If that is the point you were trying to make, then perhaps you misinterpreted my question. I asked before how we could reasonably expect society to continually advance without the motivation to do so.### Assistant: In a post-scarcity society, industrial advancement would not be necessary, and so would not be expected to be a high priority.

### Human: CMV: There are other worthwhile majors besides STEM### Assistant: There's nothing wrong with having an interest or a passion for things like art, but does that mean we should be encouraging 18 year olds to go several thousand dollars into debt to learn about them? You can have a passion for something and explore or express that in other ways besides spending 4 years at an institution learning about it. I'm not saying that STEM is the only worthwhile thing to go to college for, but I would say that you really should have some kind of idea about how your degree might be useful to you in the future.### Human: Most people don't realize that there are actually career paths in the art world. Just as nobody technically needs a degree to code, it's a hell of a lot easier to enter the art world if you have a degree.### Assistant: This. I'm a theater major, but I'm not an actor or a technician (techies can actually make a pretty solid living). I'm a non profit management minor and I plan on going into development. A good development officer can make some really good money because there is a very small number of people who do it and an even smaller number that do it well. Someone who is good at development will return the investment in them several times over.### Human: Except that it doesn't take a development degree to have skill at developing people/concepts/markets. That's more a general skill developed through life events and involvement.### Assistant: Virtually no one will get hired now a days in development without extensive experience in the field. For people just coming in, they can't get that job without a degree at this time. If you're aiming to make a living in non profits, you're looking at upper level management. Upper level management, especially with larger organizations, it requires a degree. No different than business in that aspect.

### Human: CMV: The US should allow airline cabotage.### Assistant: But other countries don't allow that. If foreign airlines are allowed to do domestic flights, but domestic airlines aren't allowed to go to their country and do the same, isn't that unfair to domestic airlines? Wouldn't that create a strong incentive for all the existing airlines to reorganize in a foreign country?### Human: Ideally the US would be able to get other countries reciprocating on the deal. This is done presently in the EU, so it's not totally off the wall. But even without reciprocation, I think it's still a net benefit to Americans overall. It means more airlines operating in US airspace, which has big positive knock on effects like more tourism, more business meetings/deals, and lower consumer prices. A fully free system would be best, but adding in more freedom to the system is still a net positive as far as I can see. It kind of sucks for the profits of airlines headquartered in the US if there's no reciprocation, but they'd still have quite a bit of leverage since foreign airlines would still want to be able to codeshare with them. I also don't think it's hugely important where a company is headquartered. Corporate income taxes, fuel taxes, etc are paid by territory of operation, not by country of incorporation. Shares are sold on markets where anyone on Earth can own them. American Airlines may be headquartered in Texas, but it's not like they're US-owned. And back-office operations probably wouldn't move that far from where the operations of the airline are, even if the nominal HQ moved.### Assistant: Let's take a look at the EU in size compared to the United States however. Open skies rights made complete sense in that sphere because countries were so close together. If countries like that protected their rights of cabotage travel between countries would require multiple transfers sometimes. You can use the example with US states. If a company based in Michigan wanted to fly a JFK-BOS route, it would be disallowed. Think how crazy that would be if a simple flight like this couldn't happen because of being in a country that is only an hour flight away. Europe's size and scope make sense for Open Skies agreements.### Human: > countries were so close together This should mean it's *less* important. Remember that we're only talking about flights within countries, not between. If the 50 states were all countries then a JFK-BOS flight is exactly what would *become* allowed, whether by Michigan National Airlines or Lufthansa. If anything, this is an argument that a reciprocal EU-US cabotage agreement would still be unfair for US carriers - because JFK-LAX is way better than Berlin->Munich.### Assistant: I agree it would be a huge disadvantage for US carriers. I don't think we are disagreeing on that.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: I pirate too, but I don't think there are any legitimate excuses for pirating. CMV### Assistant: I remember this from another recent thread here, that was my reply (slightly modified for your case): The short answer is, that it is *copyright* that needs to validate itself with arguments, not "piracy". The public's freedom to do *anything at all* isn't something that needs to be justified or given a reason why it is acceptable. Freedom is good, bans and controls that limit it are bad, unless they justify themselves by a greater good. I don't need to "justify" wearing a yellow shirt, *you* need to justify why I should be limited in my ability to wear it. It's impossible to justify piracy, without knowing what makes acceptance of all copyright justified for you in the first place. First make an argument like "We need to obey all copyright or otherwise nothing creative would ever get made" (or hopefully something more nuanced than that), and then we can talk about whether you are right or piracy is *still justified* in the face of it. That being said, so far, I have encountered the following basic, apparently sensible, but poorly thought over attempts for that: 1. **That free file-sharing might mean potential lost sales**: This entirely ignores that some pirates might as well lead to potential won sales, or at least assumes that the former number is larger than the latter, without any direct proof supporting that, and plenty of studies outright *contradicting* that. 1. **That hypothetical profit losses are bad**: Even if we were to assume that #1 is indeed true, there would be no self-evident reason why publishers need to earn *as much as they do right now*. If copyright's length would be limited from 95 to 75 years, publishers would earn less money than now. So what? Likewise, if copyright's scope would be limited from banning personal file-sharing to only banning commercial bootlegging, that would just be a matter of realigning some regulations. The status quo doesn't empower anyone to automatically call a change in it "unjust" just because they get the short end of that change. 1. **That copyright protects "property", therefore it's control by "owners" is inherently good**: This is a modern rhetoric of the copyright lobby, not in line with either the historical ways of copyright's justification as a useful government-granted market monopoly, nor with the actual legal philosophy of what property *is*. (Hint: you can own finite amounts of matter with a spatial extention, a.k.a. "objects", by possessing them. If you write a book, you can own that book you wrote with your hand. But you can't "own" the action that your book's readers writing down the read text themselves. That's a conceptual mess. If there is no rivalous matter to possess, there is no matter to own, we are only talking about actions to control.) 1. **That the law must be obeyed**: Even if copyright needs reform, and file-sharing ought to be liberalized, we ought to patiently wait for that, because apparently morality originates from the law, rather than the other way around, or something. 1. **That "freeloading" is inherently harmful**: The assumption, that our culture has a categorical stance against people "benefiting from something without paying for it". This is not true. Even if freeloading *as a consistent lifestyle* is discouraged on the basis that if everyone would think like that, society would collapse, it is well understood that on a casual daily level, [Positive Externalities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Positive) happen all the time and are natural. Many of the examples from the previous link, where you can casually get an extra benefit from others' actions beyond what they intended for themselves, are understood to be good things, and considered examples of virtous coexistence.### Human: > The public's freedom to do anything at all isn't something that needs to be justified or given a reason why it is acceptable. The problem with this is that you could say this about things like robbery and murder if you're going to disregard all other aspects.### Assistant: Yes, you could. Fortunately, there are plenty of good justification for why robbery and murder are bad. They are taking away someone's pre-existing values, causing mayhem by threatening the public's security, and depriving us of our loved ones.### Human: Your entire debate hinges on the assumption that consuming intellectual property that someone made is OK and has no consequences. The points you outline are all well and good, but completely biased and could be countered easily by someone from the opposite camp. We all do it and we all seek comfort in painstakingly conceived arguments such as the ones you've posted, but that doesn't change the fact that you're taking something for free that somebody is charging money for.### Assistant: > The points you outline are all well and good, but completely biased and could be countered easily by someone from the opposite camp. If this would be the case, someone would have already done so instead of keeping running laps around the property analogy, and the exaggerated economic imperative. > that doesn't change the fact that you're taking something for free that somebody is charging money for. No, it doesn't. And I'm still waiting for them giving a proper justification fow why they feel entitled to doing that.### Human: I can see where you're coming from here, I really can, but I think I'll have to agree to disagree at this point.

### Human: CMV: Communities (mostly concerned parents) are far too restrictive of teenagers, and crack down too often on kids hanging out or socializing.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You sound like the exact person I am talking about in this post.### Assistant: What's your point? That the person who holds the opposite view to yours sounds like a person you imagine to hold the opposite view to yours?### Human: Yeah, basically. His viewpoint is almost insanely selfish to the point where I don't even want to engage it.### Assistant: You should. Otherwise you're not really doing justice to the spirit if CMV.

### Human: Joyce's Ulysses is not a great book, and absolutely does not deserve the acclaim it has received. CMV### Assistant: "Great" is subjective. And it's hard to argue with virtually every literally critic who agree that it is a masterpiece, not to mention Modern Library voted it the best book of the 20th century. It's ridiculously inaccessible to most readers, especially upon a first reading. But to suggest that something is bad because it is inaccessible is simply wrong. Ulysses is powerful because of the stream on consciousness style, it couldn't really have worked any other way. The entire book takes place over the course of one day, and Joyce's idea was that he wanted to encapsulate the very throes of existence in the day to day minutiae of reality. Having Ulysses revolve around a significant event would have defeated the purpose. And making the book simple would have done so as well. Nietzsche may be right that profundity is achieved through clarity, but Joyce's point was that life isn't necessarily clear to begin with, so simplicity would have gone against his very message. You don't have to agree, but you can still appreciate what he was trying (and in my opinion, succeeded) to do. If you don't like the book, no one will be able to convince you to like it. However, I think the [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/09/specials/joyce-ulysses.html) does a decent job of conveying its power and significance.### Human: > But to suggest that something is bad because it is inaccessible is simply wrong. In principle I agree, but this comment of Joyce's I find very annoying: 'I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of ensuring one's immortality.' This is surely inaccessibility for inaccessibility's sake, which I would argues is indeed bad.### Assistant: that quote is probably just another self referential enigma we wont decipher until 100 years from now.### Human: Yeah maybe, sounds a lot like blind faith to me.### Assistant: Perhaps I haven't explained myself fully. Joyce's work is important not just for what it is within itself but also because it revolutionized the world of literature. This quote from Wikipedia might help explain it a little more: >The book consists of 18 chapters, each covering roughly one hour of the day, beginning around 8 a.m. and ending some time after 2 a.m. the following morning. Each chapter employs its own literary style, and parodies a specific episode in Homer's Odyssey. Furthermore, each chapter is associated with a specific colour, art or science, and bodily organ. This combination of kaleidoscopic writing with an extreme formal schematic structure renders the book a major contribution to the development of 20th-century modernist literature. The use of classical mythology as an organising framework, the near-obsessive focus on external detail, and the occurrence of significant action within the minds of characters have also contributed to the development of literary modernism. Nevertheless, Joyce complained that, "I may have oversystematised Ulysses," and played down the mythic correspondences by eliminating the chapter titles that had been taken from Homer. So the idea is that in using new techniques along with old ones in new ways, Joyce revolutionized the literary landscape, all in one book. If anyone would like me to elaborate further I'd be happy to.

### Human: CMV: Genetically Modified Foods Provide a Net Benefit### Assistant: Here's my best reason for being against GMOs. They double down on a broken monoculture food system. Responding to droughts, disease, pests and environmental damage with genetic engineering is a false solution. Genetic diversity is what makes a crop resilient, and GMO tech undermines that by planting the exact same seeds. Sure you can engineer a seed to be resistant to one fungus or one pest but when you plant all of that seed, it leaves your crop massively vulnerable to any other. Climate change is going to contribute to crop failures and food insecurity enough, we don't need the whole world growing a few select varieties of a few select crops. A resilient food system would foster genetic diversity and polycultures that would be much more of a solution than GMOs.### Human: Vaccination is a false solution too though right? We are injecting people with antibodies so their bodies can fight off disease instead of letting nature take its course and create a healthier herd that wouldn't need to be artificially propped up in the future with more vaccines. I'm pro Vaccine and Pro GMO I'm just curious if you've thought about all the other false solutions that many support already. Because I get where you are coming from and I agree that false solutions need to be thoroughly examined but then logically you have to make room for our whole society that is built on a myriad of false solutions.### Assistant: I really don't think the two are at all comparable. Vaccinations don't make our collective health so fragile that one super-disease could wipe us all out. GMOs on the other hand would.### Human: They do if we ran out of vaccine for some reason and the disease was not fully eradicated it absolutely would wipe us out. Maybe not today so much as in the next 200-300 years. Vaccines have only been around for a few decades but as time marches on we will become more vulnerable. Again Pro Vaccine here, just pointing out consistency issues because there are lots of artificial crutches.### Assistant: How would we run out of vaccine... I just don't think it's a good analogy. My issue with GMOs isn't that they're an artificial crutch, it's that they're a life preserver with a hole.

### Human: CMV: Using your mobile phone constantly when with someone is extremely rude and is accepted too much in society.### Assistant: Etiquette is defined by society. Since you yourself have admitted that this goes on all the time, it would imply that society doesn't find it a breach of etiquette (i.e., rude).### Human: If someone is being rude they don't have to be called out on it by society (if society as a whole could even collectively call out a minor rude behaviour) for it to be defined as rude. Rude is defined as 'impolite' or 'bad-mannered'. Yes- In social situations it is impolite to ignore present people in favour of other random people in your phone. I think most people would agree with that statement.### Assistant: Sure, and if you personally believed that having a name that starts with a vowel is rude, I suppose that that is your right to think that way. However the rest of society is going to disagree with you and think that you are the rude one for arguing about it.### Human: I don't see how having a name with a vowel could be rationally argued to be rude ('impolite or bad-mannered') and either way, society could only argue that I am being rude for arguing it if I am arguing it in an impolite or bad-mannered fashion. That would only make my *delivery* of the issue rude and have nothing to do with whether or not the issue itself is rude.. Your example falls apart with the definition of rude.### Assistant: > I don't see how having a name with a vowel could be rationally argued to be rude ('impolite or bad-mannered') All social norms are inherently arbitrary. It makes no more or less logical sense than chewing with your mouth closed or shaking hands. This becomes apparent when you go to other cultures and find that many of your norms are backwards. For example, in Japan it is fine to fart at a restaurant and when Katsu Shintarô, a famous actor, kissed his mother's genitals at her funeral, it was seen as an act of respect and love. > society could only argue that I am being rude for arguing it if I am arguing it in an impolite or bad-mannered fashion. That would only make my delivery of the issue rude and have nothing to do with whether or not the issue itself is rude. No, members of a society generally dislike people who attempt to enforce social norms, regardless of the delivery. Especially for something that you yourself pointed out that most people do. For example, can you think of *any* way to tell a smoker that you don't want them smoking in their own home that wouldn't result in them feeling at least a upset and put out?### Human: >All social norms are inherently arbitrary I agree that what is 'rude' (impolite or bad-mannered) differs with each society- There may be some bizarre society that considers being on your phone and ignoring friends when socialising admirable. I am speaking for myself though and can't claim an absolute on this, obviously, nobody can claim a 100% absolute with this sort of thing (or anything, but that doesn't make all conversations invalid.) You are trying to devalue what me and many other people see as rude just because it isn't 'objectively rude'. Is nobody entitled to call something rude if there isn't some kind of bible of behaviour we can all agree on? Absolutely not, if I experience something as impolite I can use the word 'impolite' without having to consider a random person somewhere that wouldn't agree. > can you think of any way to tell a smoker that you don't want them smoking in their own home that wouldn't result in them feeling at least a upset and put out? I wouldn't tell a smoker to not smoke *in their own house*. It is legal to do so. If they are smoking in their kids face or something actually illegal there may be grounds to say something but I don't see what that example has to do with being rude or not.### Assistant: You post basically states that tons of people do something that you think is annoying, so therefore it is rude. My point is that since tons of people are doing it and obviously don't think it is rude, your view is the extreme and not theirs. Why this fact matters was the point of my example. I wasn't saying you would tell a smoker they couldn't smoke in their home, I was using it as a clear example that people don't like others calling their behavior rude, regardless of how it is delivered. So, since we have established that most people don't hold your view that this is rude and would be upset by you telling them not to do it, we can conclude that your view is quantifiable more rude than the acts it calls out.

### Human: I believe the USA spends an appropriate amount of money on its military, given its geopolitical importance. CMV.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I agree with you almost 100%! The US military is full of waste. So are most large corporations/institutions. These are things that can be adjusted and improved, but overall, they make up a very small percentage of what we actually spend on the military. My main point is that we should be spending a whole heck of a lot on our military, and when you create a gigantic institution like this, it will inherently be wasteful. Instead of fighting US congressmen's and generals' desire to spend money on new projects/troop surges, let's reduce waste! In the end, though, we should still be spending way more than everybody else if we intend to keep the status quo in the world (which serves us and our western allies well). Edit: added some clarification.### Assistant: "We should spend more than everybody else if we intend to keep the status quo in the world" I agree! But we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military! You honestly think that is justified? You think the U.S. holds more responsibility than the rest of the world combined? I disagree, and I find it hard to argue your point. There's no way in hell that the U.S. should be spending the same amount on their military than the rest of the world combined. Also, when was the last War or military engagement the U.S. fought that was ACTUALLY based on defense of our homeland? Any War more recent than WWII would be false, all Wars we have engaged in since the 1940s have been for political or corporate reasons. Look this up: On 9/10/01, one day before September 11th, the Pentagon (IE the U.S. military) admitted they had LOST TRACK OF 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS. This sum is the total of 4+ Years of the military budget. They LOST TRACK OF IT. They "do not know what happened to it". You're arguing this allotment of funds to the military is justified? We give them $500 Billion a year so they can throw it away without knowing where it went? I'm sorry sir, but fuck that. I am a taxpayer and it's offensive to American citizens to say these governmental organizations deserve this kind of money. They have proven themselves to be incredibly poor handlers of the money, and considering how much they waste, there is no conceivable way to argue that they deserve the allotment. And also, you compare the U.S. government (specifically the waste within it) to corporations. This is a flawed argument in the fact that the U.S. government is PUBLIC, and gets the majority of it's dollars from TAXPAYERS, while corporations get their money privately. Thus corporations can do whatever the fuck they want with their money, but the Government must be accountable to the PEOPLE, because it's the PEOPLE who give them the money in the first place.### Human: You say the US isn't justified to spend so much on the military, so I have to ask: what is the most amount of money we could justify spending? What's the least? Should we spend nothing? How do you come up with what is justified and what is not? I am just curious to your way of thinking.### Assistant: Thanks for your reply. I think there should be a 3rd party governmental organization which can review the current and past military budgets, how they spent it, and how much went to proper investments, and how much was lost or "wasted". There needs to be a review board to decide the military budget. They can decide this based on current global situations, what the U.S. Military needs to be doing, and past actions/budgets of the military. Is the military building thousands of tanks and airplanes that aren't being used? If so, some funding needs to be cut from that area. If this review board finds that the military got $500b, but they can only find paper-trails for $300b, then there needs to be a cut somewhere. The Military needs to be held accountable for their budget and they need to show valid reasons to have such a large budget. And because the review board would be within the government, the military would not have to release it's spending details publicly; they only need to share them with this other internal reviewing organization. I 100% think the U.S. needs to have a large budget, and probably the largest in the world. But not LARGER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. There is a large difference. I'd say start with $300b for now, pull out our operations from dozens of countries we don't need to be in (thus saving money that way) and divert the rest of the $200b taken from the budget to the Education and Welfare Departments.

### Human: If men don't want to pay child support, they shouldn't have sex with any woman they don't want to be the mother of their child. CMV### Assistant: You're basically asking humans (read, not men or women, but both) to just control some very powerful urges as though it's as easy as flipping a light switch. I think you know that's not possible. The problem with the arguments on this is that they tend to vilify men. We're (men) the bad guy, despite the fact that both the man and the woman chose to have unprotected sex *together.* We could easily sit here and reverse your expectation to women being the ones who should be expected to not engage in sex with a man they don't want to have a child with. So, basically, your argument is one-side, and likely biased. A better solution would be promotion of proper sex education. Now, when I throw the word proper in there, I mean that the subject is taught with all the biology, mechanics and consequences we're all familiar with, but instead with more emphasis on personal responsibility and handling those consequences should they arise. In short, having a better educated general public is the key. However, going back to your desire to place the responsibility solely on the male, do you think that is fair? Because I don't. What you're really saying here is that the guy has no right to object and his desire to not have a child doesn't matter. What about in the event where you have a women who claims to be on birth control and insists that a condom is not necessary, but turns out to be lying? Because if you don't think that happens, I can tell you it does. So, there is where I think that rather than placing the expectation solely on the guy, *both* sexes needed to be better educated. We could just as easily say women should be expected to not have sex with a guy they don't want to risk having a child with. Would it change anything? No, not at all, because it's irrational. If instead we stopped trying to place blame on one or the other sex and focus on teaching, advocating and displaying personal responsibility *to both sexes* in all matters sexual, then we would see a dramatic improvement over time.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Rule VII-->### Human: What does that mean?### Assistant: Post removed due to a violation of Rule VII seen in the side bar (where the arrow is pointing).### Human: Heh. No, but really, what did he say and what does rula 7 says? Im on mobile...### Assistant: No idea what he said, but rule 7 is "Rude or hostile comments are to be deleted".### Human: Thanks. I'm taking a wild guess here and saying that he commented something rude or hostile.### Assistant: Deleted comment was "I think OP is probably around 15-19 and does not understand the concept of life."### Human: Cool, thanks.

### Human: CMV Even if irrefutable proof of widespread corruption in the US government came to light, the American people would be unwilling and unable to effectively respond.### Assistant: No one expected the Russian Revolution. No one expected the sudden end of Ceausescu's regime in Romania. Surely a band of peasants in Vietnam could never defeat a world empire? The people don't know their own power. Yes, things are grim, and the future is uncertain. There has, however, been a massive social shift. Workers are slowly but surely regaining their class consciousness. The winds of change are blowing.### Human: > Workers are slowly but surely regaining their class consciousness. They are also quickly and absolutely loosing their jobs to automated systems because of socialist laws.### Assistant: How is the rise of automation the result of socialist laws? That's absurd.### Human: Minimum wage for an example. Is it a coincidence low price fast food places are increasingly installing automated systems while the government is rising the minimum wage?### Assistant: Yes, it is. They were already developing those systems.### Human: [removed]### Assistant: Sorry defaultuserprofile, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 2\. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+2+Post+Appeal&message=defaultuserprofile+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4jhwvr/cmv_even_if_irrefutable_proof_of_widespread/d37l10x\))

### Human: CMV: As modern medicine and technology develop, natural selection applies less and less to humans### Assistant: It applies the same as it always has, it's just very different environmental pressures that factor into death and procreation because we live in a very different world. Ability to obtain and use medicine and technology well is part of that. Survival of the fittest is just a confusing way of describing natural selection - people assume fittest means healthier, stronger, smarter, etc. but it's never been quite that simple. Not all environments are the same, there is no pure natural environment. What works well in one may not in another. There are some bizarre creatures in the world that survive more on energy efficiency, ability to eat a weird food source, etc. etc. rather than what we think of as "fit". People who die before procreation still don't pass on genes, people who procreate more successfully pass on more genes. That's natural selection still, no matter how much easier it is to stay alive or procreate. People also opt out of passing on genes if they have certain defects, other aren't interested in procreating, and some are just undesirable mates. Various social factors still affect who does and doesn't pass on genes.### Human: >People who die before procreation still don't pass on genes, people who procreate more successfully pass on more genes. That's natural selection still, no matter how much easier it is to stay alive or procreate. This is true, but that doesn't mean its natural selection. Natural selection has to act on some gene that affects fitness. If you die in a plane crash before you have kids, you are not passing on your genes, but that is also not natural selection at work unless you try to argue that you are genetically more inclined to die in a plane crash, which doesn't make a lot of sense. If if you did make that argument, plane crashes don't happen frequently enough to actually affect the gene pool. >People also opt out of passing on genes if they have certain defects, other aren't interested in procreating, and some are just undesirable mates. Various social factors still affect who does and doesn't pass on genes. This would be artificial selection, not natural selection. OP isn't arguing that evolution has stopped/slowed in humans, but that natural selection is no longer a significant driver of human evolution.### Assistant: > Natural selection has to act on some gene that affects fitness. > that is also not natural selection at work unless you try to argue that you are genetically more inclined to die in a plane crash The measure of fitness is just what survives natural selection, you've got it backwards. We'd define genes that affect fitness as those that affect survival and mating success - which can be any gene at all depending on circumstances. An illness could cause people with higher testosterone levels to die off and suddenly low testosterone was naturally selected over higher testosterone and becomes the new measure of fitness. I choose that example because something quite similar has been observed - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html As for plane crashes, they probably aren't common enough to affect much but they're still natural selection because it's still an environmental hazard. If far more planes crashed people who have genetics which make them more likely to take planes would eventually be less and less common - of course it's not a "plane crash gene" but a collection of genetics that are relevant to their likelihood to take plashes. > This would be artificial selection, not natural selection. OP isn't arguing that evolution has stopped/slowed in humans, but that natural selection is no longer a significant driver of human evolution. Yeah I considered this but here's how I see it - mate selection is included in natural selection. Artificial selection is when we choose who can and cannot mate like with animal breeding. If we disallow people with certain genes to breed, that's clearly artificial. If a person *chooses* not to mate because they have a genetic defect(or any other reason), I'm not sure that's really artificial - it seems like part of mate selection is also about which people choose to mate and why and that being affected by perception of one's own fitness seems like it falls under natural selection. I could be wrong though, or it could be a grey area.### Human: >The measure of fitness is just what survives natural selection, you've got it backwards. No, I don't. Genes that positively affect reproductive success (fitness) can still die out do things like genetic drift. You could acquire a mutation that causes you to have more babies that are more likely to survive childhood. This would increase your fitness. However due to bad luck during meiosis you could fail to pass that trait on to any of your offspring and it dies out. That is not natural selection. As for the "plane crash gene". Hypothetically lets say there is some collection of genes that makes you far far more likely to want to fly, and this combination of genes is relatively common in the population, say 1/3 of Americans have it. You say it would become less and less common, but it would not. At least not because of natural selection. Somewhere between 500 and 1500 people die in plane crashes every year. Even if we put it at its max every year, that means it is the cause of death of .000005% of Americans (1500 deaths/300,000,000 Americans). Not even remotely close to significant enough to drive evolution. >Yeah I considered this but here's how I see it - mate selection is included in natural selection. Artificial selection is when we choose who can and cannot mate like with animal breeding. If we disallow people with certain genes to breed, that's clearly artificial. If a person chooses not to mate because they have a genetic defect(or any other reason), I'm not sure that's really artificial - it seems like part of mate selection is also about which people choose to mate and why and that being affected by perception of one's own fitness seems like it falls under natural selection. I could be wrong though, or it could be a grey area. It's not really a grey area, that's sexual selection. You're right in that it's not really artificial selection but it's a separate thing from natural selection.### Assistant: > Genes that positively affect reproductive success (fitness) can still die out do things like genetic drift. You could acquire a mutation that causes you to have more babies that are more likely to survive childhood. This would increase your fitness. That's using the propensity interpretation of fitness isn't it? While it's interesting and does address some problems with other interpretations, it also creates new problems. There is no pure natural environment which we can evaluate the value of a gene-that-never-comes to be against, the world is always changing, and while bad luck can certainly result in a potentially valuable trait being passed on, we have no way to measure the value of traits that never survived with this sort of interpretation so it seems highly speculative. I'm open to changing my mind about this though, if you've got a source that shows me it's the most widely accepted or default interpretation - or just gives a really strong argument for accepting it over other interpretations - I'll check them out and mull it over. > It's not really a grey area, that's sexual selection. You're right in that it's not really artificial selection but it's a separate thing from natural selection. Sexual selection is often included as subcategory of natural selection and not entirely separate.### Human: I will get back to you later with some sources.

### Human: The ability to speak English clearly should be an important factor in considering the employment of teachers and professors (in the United States). CMV.### Assistant: Just because you have never seen a teaching survey that questions comprehension doesn't mean it's not being considered. The administration is well aware of what each professor sounds like - they did interviews, and they sit in meetings and such. They are not ignorant of the handicap of an accent, and have taken that into consideration at the time of hiring the professor. Also, there is not a limitless supply of experts worthy of being professors. Get rid of all the professors with accents, and who will you replace them with?### Human: You make good points. My experience and the experiences of some of my friends have lead me to believe that it accent is not considered very heavily, but I haven't seen the hiring process. May I ask what makes you think that it is taken into consideration? >Also, there is not a limitless supply of experts worthy of being professors. An endless supply, perhaps not. But there are a whole lot of people who want to be professors, many more than there are positions. Also, I don't advocate blacklisting anyone with an accent; I just think it should be considered more heavily than it seems to be considered.### Assistant: > An endless supply, perhaps not. But there are a whole lot of people who want to be professors, many more than there are positions. Firstly, **many schools are NOT primarily for teaching.** Professors tend to be hired based on academic achievement, not necessarily based on teaching accreditation (at least at many "upper tier" colleges/universities). Professors at these institutions are all clearly highly invested in their research and have picked up a path that emphasizes this (not to say that they don't think teaching is important, just not their *primary* focus). Even if you wish to tip the scales in favor of "better English speakers", you then end up *hampering* these professor's ability to actually perform research. Now this necessarily means more weight falls to "native" professors (assuming we are talking USA/Canada/G.B.) which would result in your nation actually losing standing on the international academic stage.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry thencaapawardgoesto, your post has been removed: > Comment Rule 5\. "No 'low effort' posts. This includes comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes". Humor and affirmations of agreement contained within more substantial comments are still allowed." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5)

### Human: CMV: I think that to be eligible for an organ transplant, you should be required to have agreed to be an organ donor for at least 1 year prior.### Assistant: What is the point of your view? If the goal is to get more donors, an opt-out system is better because it raises the number of donors without introducing a questionable system of denying people medical care for no good reason. If you just want revenge against people who don't donate, you should rethink your values because revenge is an awful reason to do anything.### Human: Opt-out systems, while better than opt-in, do not guarantee that there will be enough donors. For example, while opt-out systems increase the number of deceased donors, they often decrease the number of living donors, which are especially important for things like liver and kidney transplants. This system simply attempts to create a system that people buy into, rather than leaving most to be free-riders.### Assistant: No system guarantees enough donors. More importantly, you seem to want to give prospective recipients an incentive to donate beforehand. I think that's a terrible idea because our medical system should treat everyone. Period. There should be no caveats for "you're too mean/weak/poor/black/etc." Everyone deserves a healthy life, and taking that away from anyone because of a decision they made is a horrific abuse that I hope never occurs. A person's health is too important. I want to ask this question: do you think that this proposal will increase the total number of donors (living and deceased?) or just deceased?### Human: The fact is that there are more people who need organs than there are organs. So there inherently HAS to be a decision making process involved otherwise you just draw names out of a hat which would be worse. The OP is suggesting a fair system where if you are willing to donate your organs upon your death then you should be given some preference if you should need an organ yourself...how is that anything but fair?### Assistant: Here's a list of things that the doctors use to make the decision on who gets organs. (Via [TransplantLiving.org](http://www.transplantliving.org/before-the-transplant/about-organ-allocation/matching-organs/)) >tissue match >blood type >length of time on the waiting list >immune status >distance between the potential recipient and the donor >degree of medical urgency (for heart, liver, lung and intestines) This seems like a very narrow list of relevant qualities to determine recipients, and while I am sad for those who do not receive organs in time, it seems like there's a system in place to ensure that those most needing organs get them and that the procedure is successful, prompt, and effective. The existing system just seems to make transplants more successful. >how is that anything but fair? OP's system is NOT fair because it takes an irrelevant quality and uses it to make value judgments. A person's willingness to donate has nothing to do with their needing an organ. Again, take a look at the above list. Doesn't that look like a very relevant list of things to evaluate?### Human: It is a good list and guess what, we still have a shortage. If you are unwilling to donate then why should you be entitled to an organ is the question, and I'm perplexed how you think that aspect is irrelevant. Its the exact same thing as yes you can use my car so long as I can use yours should I need it...in the event that I find out you are unwilling to let me use your car but you have no problem using mine then who cares about the NEED...the question is do you deserve it?### Assistant: >If you are unwilling to donate then why should you be entitled to an organ is the question I think everyone deserves to receive an organ. Because organs are scarce, and the government does not want free market organ selling, there is a system in place to allocate organs. To my eyes, the list seems focused on 1. maximizing transplant success and 2. minimizing patient death. Whether someone is an organ donor or not falls out of that scope. That's why I think it is irrelevant. What OP's suggestion would do is add a third qualifier: is the patient a good guy/believes in what we want/charitable person/etc. In my opinion, those questions are irrelevant to a doctor's decision to care for a patient because they are too subjective and have nothing to do with the procedure itself. A person's donor status has as much to do with a transplant procedure as their community service or education level. Surely you wouldn't use those to determine someone's recipient status?### Human: If we had plenty of organs to go around we wouldn't need a list at all and I'd be all for everyone getting an organ that needs one. If we have it and we can give it then yes let's do that and who needs a list at that point...but we have to work from the scarcity model because that is reality. One way to minimize patient death is to ensure there are enough organs available and one way to do that it to incentivize organ donor status and it makes sense to connect that to whether or not you get an organ. So maybe this is a fundamental disagreement...if you aren't willing to be a part of the system then I don't believe you deserve it because scarcity is the reality and because deserve and need aren't the same thing...but if there were plenty to go around I'd be with you.### Assistant: Let's say that there was a sick old person who was in a hospital far from an organ donor and was only a partial match but was on the organ donor list. Let's also say that there was a sick young person who was in the same hospital as the organ donor and a perfect match but was not on the organ donor list. Occurring to the proposed system the first person who has a, let's say, 25% chance of recovery while the person who has a 95% chance of recovery should not receive it. What if the situation was more extreme and the first person lived on the other side of the country and the time that it would take to move the organ would lower the first persons survival rate to be only 5%. Should the first person still get it? Think about a different situation. Let's say there is a poor person who will need the hospital to pay for his medical expenses but with a new organ has a 90% of survival. Let's say that there was another person who agreed to "donate" an MRI machine that could save hundreds of lives on the condition that he received the organ even though he only had a 25% chance of survival. I agree that there should be some incentive to being willing to donate but I find it hard to believe that by changing a system that maximizes survivability of the best way.### Human: I didn't imagine the donor requirement replacing the current system because I recognize the need to triage patients, I imagined it adding to the current system where there is a hard decision to be made and donor status would be a factor in those cases.### Assistant: I agree with you. That is not what OP wrote.### Human: Yeah the OP didn't address the scarcity issue, that was my assumption.

### Human: CMV: 'Buzzfeed Feminism' does more harm to feminism than good.### Assistant: Buzzfeed feminism is attempting to make the issues that they choose to focus on more digestable and shareable. While having hard hitting content that's incredibly well researched is important, what is equally important is making sure people read it. Is the best most comprehensive statistical study in feminist issues really the best most comprehensive report if nobody's there to read it? I'm sure linking to feminism.org or something will be more educational than say, linking to one sentence stat lists with pictures of cat and Beyonce gifs, but it would probably be less than half as effective. Let's say only 10 people click on feminism.org and all are immediately swept up in the material. That's a small success. Now let's say 1,000,000 people click on a buzzfeed feminism article and of those 1,000,000 people, 10,000 say "wait a second is that true?" And then from there do further research into sites like feminism.org to confirm the correctness of the stats from buzzfeed and get further down the rabbit hole because of it. That's a bigger success. As commodified as empowering feminist words and phrases have become, the fault doesn't lie with buzzfeed. They're just aping the general inclination of people to overuse words like patriarchy which has already been an issue long before they were around. The point is they're making a dense and multifaceted subject much more easily consumable to the general public, which does more good than harm.### Human: This is such an excellent argument and I'm nearly on board with you, but help me here a bit (and I know this is a hard question to answer): how do we know that easily-digestible feminism will generate an interest in 'real' feminism rather than just 'flood the market' with the watered-down faux-feminism and deter potential non-white, middle-class female feminists because of its commercial focus?### Assistant: It's really hard to get people interested in the "real", rigorous side of anything, and the accessible side has a role to play to in drumming up popular support and nudging people towards it. Obama's hope campaign or the lowest-common denominator version of the Occupy movement and the "we are the 99%" statistics isn't the "real", data-driven version of progressivism either- but these movements had the effects of a) bringing people who would otherwise not care at all into at least the plasticized version of the movement, b) creating debate around the subjects, bringing them into the public eye and having other people consider and debate the "real" versions, and c) nudge people who may have become involved otherwise, and are interested in looking at things more vigorously, to enter in greater numbers. Sure, the market will get flooded with the "watered down" version, but there will also be more broadly spread out effects that affect the subject more broadly### Human: ∆ a) and b) stuck to me the most. Most people, it seems, are not initially brought in to a social justice movement by reading a scholarly article or a social science journal, but are usually introduced by some media that presents the "watered down" version of what people in the field are trying to prove. For example, what got me interested in Feminism in the first place was reading stories of sexual and domestic assault, after having taken a high-school psychology class. I soon found out that many of these stories were published and read by feminists, and many feminist terms (internalized misogyny, rape culture, transphobia, etc.) were tossed around. Furthering my interest, I researched these words (now thought of as 'buzzwords') to figure out why they were relevant to the discussions. At first, I disagreed with many feminist ideas, but it was trough my continued discussion of these topics that I found validity in their arguments, and, after a couple years, got on their side (so to speak). tl;dr: If you throw an idea or a word out there enough, people will wonder what it is, start talking about it, and debate it. This will result in more people with a grasp of the ideas, and even though some may disagree with the ideas, your movement will gain more support as people are less apathetic to the ideas.### Assistant: <3 thanks friend, this is a big day for me. Your tl;dr is pretty much exactly what I was talking about

### Human: I believe that libertarians value material possessions more than human lives. CMV### Assistant: Libertarianism isn't about wealth or possessions. It's about less government and more freedom. There are Libertarians who believe that wealth accumulation is super important, Libertarians who believe that environmental protection is the most important thing after freedom, and Libertarians who just believe in hedonism, pacifism, or education. What all Libertarians share is the belief that freedom is important and that the government screws up a lot of what it tries. For instance, look at the work of Jonathan H. Adler. He shows in study after study that government action consistently damages the environment when pretending to "protect" it. Many people claim that in a Libertarian world there would be no regulation of environment and therefore companies would destroy it - yet he shows that the government is consistently the worst offender. He clearly values the environment highly - and wants to protect it by weakening the government. Likewise, there are many Libertarians working to bring down big business by destroying its collusion with big government. Their ire is most stoked by things like [this](http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-fought-free-simple-tax-filing). To say that Libertarians' anti-government position means they are against all the good things government sometimes does is as silly as saying all non-Libertarians love war, crony capitalism, and all the bad things government frequently does.### Human: >Libertarianism isn't about wealth or possessions. It's about less government and more freedom Except there are two types of freedom, and sometimes they're diametrically opposed. Point in case: Freedom of speech, VS freedom to intimidate anyone who says something you dislike. That's a particularly one-sided example, but it makes the point. Stuff like donations to politicians would be a somewhat less one-sided example. >For instance, look at the work of Jonathan H. Adler. He shows in study after study that government action consistently damages the environment when pretending to "protect" it. Many people claim that in a Libertarian world there would be no regulation of environment and therefore companies would destroy it - yet he shows that the government is consistently the worst offender. He clearly values the environment highly - and wants to protect it by weakening the government. Which government is this? If you're referring to the USA, maybe it's just the case that you have an exceptionally shitty government (and quite possibly in need of better self-regulation).### Assistant: >VS freedom to intimidate anyone who says something you dislike How often do you see people doing this? Pretty frequently. They almost never do so via "free speech"; they almost always do this via government action in the form of an army of lawyers. Donations to politicans are likewise useful in proportion to the power/capriciousness of the government. >Which government is this He focuses on the US, but the US is hardly the worst offender here.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Reducing government power would certainly reduce the ability of the power to abuse the courts. Reducing government power so incredibly far that it was unable to protect its citizens against violence would be a pretty radical form of Libertarianism. That would cross over to Anarcho-Capitalism.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Kanye fans are demonstrating a comical lack of awareness in their criticisms of the TLOP album artwork### Assistant: To be clear, I don't know much about art, Kanye, rap, or graphic design. However, I feel like there is a bit of a flaw in the kind of argument that typically goes like "<artist I like> is being criticized, but the critics just don't get that it's subverting <X>". Namely, that it's basically infallible. Like, go back to before the album cover was released, and let's play out a few scenarios: 1) The album cover is something in keeping with current trends. RESPONSE: "He's just highlighting how cookie-cutter mainstream music has become. So subversive!" 2) The album cover is low-key and simple. RESPONSE: "He's been known for being loud his whole career, now he's taking a total 180 in his art!" 3) The album cover is loud and bold. RESPONSE: "He defiant of his critics, as befits a career marked by being unabashedly brazen!" 4-10000) Literally a million variations on the above theme. It's not that I think you're wrong, it's that I think the argument itself is too subjective to even merit trying to define. Unless you can put strong parameters around what "Kanye not making a radical decision" would entail, and are willing to hold his past and future album covers to that same standard, we really don't have any objective metric to work with.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Is having the album name over and over again in some typography a radical new idea? I found several examples of that theme with a quick google image search. http://41.media.tumblr.com/f35a518ac83b973882b7026b83136277/tumblr_nxxf8oq7EN1rpgpe2o1_1280.jpg http://ak-main-blog.andrewkelsalldes.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/radiohead-in-rainbows.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/7c/ac/747cac69b96028fac8c14abb6b0d8e68.jpg http://www.jmcacademy.edu.au/getattachment/e7630912-35d8-4602-a128-eb5c7a6ef164/riot.jpg.aspx Again, I'm not the authority on album art, but I feel like it's all a lot of "nothing new under the sun" when it comes to what you can do with the title of a CD.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: What I think it's missing is the rest of the album. /u/floorberry covered it in a comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/45bzzi/cmv_kanye_fans_are_demonstrating_a_comical_lack/czwxkg2) and I tried to add on to it in a reply. I think a big reason for criticism is that the cover doesn't stand on its own. I'm not saying it should stand alone, but I think there would be a lot less criticism if people were able to have the album in its entirety, music and all. They've gotten pieces of it over the past couple days, but nothing on its own lived up to the hype. The title was a surprise, the cover art was even more of a surprise, and the stream for his fashion show was apparently very poor. So far things haven't been living up to what fans have been waiting for since 2013. I think once they have the complete package there will be a lot less focus on the cover, and probably more people actually defending it.

### Human: CMV: Success in Formula 1 doesn't depend on drivers. It depends on the cars.### Assistant: Well there's no doubt that the car is important, yes, but maybe you don't appreciate just how brilliant the driver has to be to win the race in that car ... ordinary people wouldn't be able to do a decent lap time even if they had the best car and years of practice ... it takes exceptional talent to be able to control one of those cars at such high speeds, and to make split second decisions about where to place the car when it is right next to another car ... the speed of the driver's thoughts and actions is incredible. So the drivers are all exceptional when you get to F1 level, but some are even more outstanding within that small group.### Human: Obviously the drivers in F1 are the best in the world, otherwise they'll be in some lower competition. I think OP is arguing that the skill differences amongst the F1 drivers are minimal, unlike every other sport in the world, and that if you placed any other F1 driver in the RB car these past few years, they would have had the same success as Vettel did.### Assistant: Perhaps the only way we could settle that would be to give each driver an identical car and see if some drivers tend to win more than others ... I suspect that we would see that happen.### Human: At the end of the day, discussion of sports is super subjective and many times purely hypothetical. It would be nice to experimentally test the long run performance of each driver if they had identical cars, but that's obviously not gonna happen. I personally am not well informed enough on F1 to give an opinion, this kind of topic is just really intriguing. Would be great if an avid F1 fan would give his 2c on this.### Assistant: I think he was referring to things like stock car racing, where the cars *are* actually all more or less identical to each other, yet is still considered a sport with heated competition.### Human: The thing is though, even F1 cars are equally identical. The biggest difference between a NASCAR and F1 analogy is F1 has a bunch of sensors they can use to pull telemetry while NASCAR tends to rely on the driver to say what's going on. This comes down to the rules of the racing body; NASCAR's intent is to be as low-tech as possible (saves on cost, keeps to its roots), while F1 has always been the pinnacle of racing tech. F1 racers aren't exactly driving the family Buick around a circuit, they're effectively piloting something akin to the space shuttle. In the spirit of the topic, with NASCAR racers, the delegation of mechanical changes would be something like a modern test pilot relying on his/her mechanics to maintain the vehicle. In F1, it would be more like the Apollo missions. There's a lot more stuff going on with a Saturn V rocket that you need to have a team of engineers there to make sense of all the data in order to relay it back to the pilot. Certainly the pilots are mostly along for the ride, but you still need a pilot in order to get to the moon and to make changes as the situation unfolds (Apollo 13, for example). To say that they're an insignificant role is undermining what it is that they're having to put themselves through. And it's easy to think this too as you get used to seeing their routine over and over and over again, where we disassociate the fact that there's a real person there manipulating the controls.### Assistant: nascar switched to fuel injection, but they didn't get rack and pinion yet

### Human: CMV: I don't think Nintendo had to apologize for not including gay marriages in Tomodachi Life### Assistant: It's true that this game is aimed at children, but that's exactly why it's important to include the possibility of same sex marriages. In a modern, western society we accept homosexuals and give them the possibility to marry, because we view all those couples as equal. By not including same sex marriage in the game, Nintendo isn't relaying this message. They're not necessarily saying that they disapprove of same sex marriage, but they're implying that same sex marriage is abnormal. And that implication will be taught to or 'absorbed' by the kids that are playing. Nintendo would greatly contribute to a more progressive society by allowing same sex marriage in Tomodachi Life, by showing kids that love can exist between two of the same genders. > This element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages (small factor, but still). And this element isn't present in real life gay marriages as well, so it would be weird to include it in same sex marriages. The game isn't supposed to be social commentary, ofcourse, but it still will influence this generation's children, and it would be wise to include these messages.### Human: >It's true that this game is aimed at children, but that's exactly why it's important to include the possibility of same sex marriages. Nice brainwashing.### Assistant: How dare he want to encourage tolerance in future generations?### Human: >“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” -Aristotle### Assistant: Aristotle also argued that some people are natural slaves. Quoting pithily is not an argument. Do you really think our society is dying because we realized that having children is not the be all and end all?### Human: What do you think would happen if we all had the glorious realization that children aren't the be all and end all?### Assistant: People would have a lot more disposable income and a lot of overpopulation problems (resource, environment, etc.) would be more easily solved...

### Human: I believe that ADHD is a made up/overdiagnosed disease with its main purpose being to make drug companies money. CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: It is both over diagnosed and under diagnosed. It just depends on the race/gender of the person being diagnosed.### Assistant: Do you have a source to back that up? I mean, it sounds nice, but if we could have actual research to link false diagnosis rates to race and gender that would be awesome. Affluence, sure, but race and gender isolated? I don't think so.### Human: http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html### Assistant: All your source says is that there isn't enough epidemiological research to draw a conclusion.### Human: You read the whole thing in less than three minutes? I think you skimmed it and caught the part where they were talking about a different study.### Assistant: It still doesn't draw the connection. They are not isolating race as a factor in false diagnosis. It talks about it not getting reported, but not about doctors seeing these individuals and **making discrepant diagnoses *based on their race*.**### Human: >It talks about it not getting reported, but not about doctors seeing these individuals and making discrepant diagnoses based on their race. I did not make that claim. While similar, claiming (for example) that white males are over diagnosed does not mean that the cause of the diagnosis is their race and gender.### Assistant: Then how is the article even relevant? We're talking about ADHD being diagnosed disproportionately in certain races not because those kids are seeing the doctor more but because *when they see the doctor, they are being diagnosed more often* (while of course controlling for the type of doctor, resources available, etc.).### Human: No no no Why would we be talking about that? That's hardly relevant. We should be talking about the summation of all reasons why white males get disproportionately diagnosed. We shouldn't be doing what you suggest and assuming one reason and then disproving that, but should instead be exploring all possible reasons.

### Human: CMV: I believe any race should be able to sing any song.### Assistant: Off the bat, let's just establish that behavior like this: >I have watched covers of people of different races attempting to cover songs that contain the word, and in the comments sections they are vehemently threatened. Sometimes they are even told to kill themselves, ...is never justified. It's indisputable that the use of the word "nigger" and its variations are woven into the fabric of Hip-Hop. Cornel West has said *"There's a certain rhythmic seduction to the word. If you speak in a sentence, and you have to say cat, companion, or friend, as opposed to nigger, then the rhythmic presentation is off. That rhythmic language is a form of historical memory for black people..."* In that same vein, the history of the Black American is woven into the fabric of hip-hop. You cannot separate the two. Therefore, the context where hip-hop songs containing that word are reproduced by non-black people has everything to do with whether it's acceptable. At a Drake concert? I don't think you'd be looked at the wrong way for singing along. Alone with your buddies, whom you know, in your car? Again, I think it's okay. On your own? At this point, I think I can recite every word on *To Pimp a Butterfly*, and pasty white dude that I am, I rap right along when I listen. However, the word being in a song doesn't separate it from its history. You don't know who will be impacted by it and in what way. Furthermore, if I made a video of myself covering *i* on YouTube, I think a pretty strong argument could be made that what I'm doing is offensive. I'm not respecting the meaning of the song, the impact of those words, the reason that they were used; I'm just garnering attention for myself because it "sounds cool." Hip-hop is a genre born exclusively of the socioeconomic and political oppression of black Americans. For me to co-opt that to get a few views or inflate my own ego is definitely pushing a line. >When a white person is seriously told to blow their own brains out for doing something as innocent as singing the "wrong song" based on their race, I think that's an issue. I think it's an issue too, but the issue is vitriolic responses to things we don't like. People on the internet issue death threats for all kinds of stuff; disagreeing on political matters, ending season 6 of *The Walking Dead* on a cliffhanger, or saying you're a feminist on /r/theredpill. None of that is okay, but it doesn't mean that a white person making a video of themselves covering a song with the n-word is really okay either. *EDIT: The number of almost completely off-topic replies and strawman arguments that I'm fielding here is absurd. The OP and I are quite specifically discussing the context of (1) a white person/people (2) covering a song on YouTube (3) that contains the word "nigger" in its original form. My discussion with the OP has been incredibly to-the-point on both our parts in regards to the question that they posed. I am not saying anywhere that it is unilaterally unacceptable for white people to listen to/sing along to music that contains the n-word or hip-hop in general. I am not advocating that anyone be in any way disallowed from covering a song they like, regardless of the language therein. If you're going to reply to me to try to prove me wrong or catch me in some sort of contradiction, fine, but please at least do me the courtesy of reading my exchange with the OP and taking the points I make into context so that I don't need to continually repeat myself and dismantle strawmen. Thanks.*### Human: Where have people on the /r/theredpill issued death threats to feminists? That seems like quite a tangential boogeyman shoehorn.### Assistant: As I replied to another commentor, I am speaking anecdotally. I have personally recieved death threats from redpillers.### Human: By all means, post the example and let us see it.### Assistant: Why?### Human: Because that's a very serious allegation. Let's us all see what a horrible message they sent you to reinforce your comment.### Assistant: So like you're the reddit police then? I'm not digging up a two-year old string of PMs from since-deleted accounts to validate my experiences to whoever the hell you are. I made an illustrative statement that for the purposes of the discussion at hand is entirely irrelevant, but you've decided to challenge me on it. Are you a redpiller? Did I hurt your feelings? I'm very sorry if so. I'm also not alleging anything. You asked my why I wrote that, and I answered. This isn't a court of law. I'm not demanding action be taken against anyone. I'm not going out of my way to accuse individuals of anything. I just stated a thing that happened to me. You're free to disbelieve me, I really don't care.### Human: >So like you're the reddit police then? >I'm not digging up a two-year old string of PMs from since-deleted accounts to validate my experiences to whoever the hell you are. I made an illustrative statement that for the purposes of the discussion at hand is entirely irrelevant, but you've decided to challenge me on it. Are you a redpiller? Did I hurt your feelings? I'm very sorry if so. >I'm also not alleging anything. You asked my why I wrote that, and I answered. This isn't a court of law. I'm not demanding action be taken against anyone. I'm not going out of my way to accuse individuals of anything. I just stated a thing that happened to me. You're free to disbelieve me, I really don't care. I'm not sure why you're getting defensive. You said people in /r/theredpill have sent you death threats. Most people will agree that someone sending someone death threats is a horrible thing and possibly even illegal in some places. I personally believe that death threats are a terrible thing. I also believe that such a serious accusation deserves a specific example for everyone to see how bad it is. People constantly say how bad /r/theredpill is in anecdotes but here you are with a real life example of such a thing. Unless you send a lot of messages, they're a lot easier to find than comment replies. It would not be difficult to dig them up. Why wouldn't you want to demonstrate these death threats you've received? Do you think people who send death threats should be able to get away with it? If they sent you death threats might it be safe to say they sent others death threats?

### Human: CMV: Folks who think the /r/fatpeoplehate fiasco won't blow over are overestimating the importance of this issue to the less vocal majority of reddit users.### Assistant: ehhh, I think if you look at the GamerGate moment, and assume that there is some non-negligible crossover there...there is a segment of the reddit populace for whom this is very literally the most important thing in the world. Long after no one else cares, there will a community that really, really, really still cares.### Human: I agree. But my point is that it's not an existential threat.### Assistant: What is reddit in your opinion? Like, you want your view changed that this won't "kill" reddit but what do you even think reddit is? Reddit is a platform. That's it. Sometimes it's an idea, but ideas don't die. Reddit as a platform can, though. When I joined reddit, it was because a friend wanted to make a stupid sub for his stupid minecraft server and wanted us to comment in it. 3 comments. That was all it got, and it was all from people we knew. You know what though? I started looking around. I found the /r/teslore sub that I lurked in with no account for months. That was before it went all dumb and "CHIM CHIM CHIM!" and it was awesome. I actually started using my account - or actually, I think I had to make a new one because i forgot the pw. REGARDLESS though, reddit became more than just the platform, it became an idea - you can have any space you want for you, and the things YOU want to talk about, and others can join you. You don't have to piss around in /r/gaming where others aren't going to know where to find you and your topic. It became an idea. **Idea's do not die.** Reddit as a platform is no longer that idea for me. It hasn't been for a while. I'm sorry, but it really hasn't. For way too long some harassment has been more equal than other, and if you drastically alter your platform - what people see as your platform - for the sake of curbing harassment, you can't just pick and choose which harassment is better or worse. People will see the hypocrisy for what it is, and the idea they thought was reddit - it will be no more. Reddit may just as well always exist as a platform - but what that platform looks like, it will never be the idea of what reddit was.### Human: Reddit is built on an idea and a platform, but what matters is the community. I can see two ways for reddit to "die." Either the platform can be destroyed (e.g. the company fails), or the community can flee the platform. Either are possible if a big enough scandal hits, but I doubt this is that big.### Assistant: This one isn't, perhaps, but it's a sign that the admins have an agenda and they're not impartial. They're willing to ban subreddits, and more importantly pre-emptively ban future subreddits that have not yet had the opportunity to break the rules purely based on the idea the sub is formed around. I don't think this is the last wave. Next one is probably racism, the one after that is probably anti-SJWs like TumblrInAction or KotakuInAction or MensRights. And then they'll be happy because they finally recreated Tumblr.### Human: What noble allies you keep

### Human: I believe the United States military should be a domestic force, and take a non interventionist approach. CMV.### Assistant: >The United States has become what I title a global police state. The United States is not a global police state, because the police intend to uphold the law. America, like every other nation operating on the global stage, seeks to further its own interests--oftentimes at the expense of international law. >We currently have troops deployed in over 140 countries, or more than 75 percent of the world's nations. That's vague. Troop deployments can range anywhere from a 100,000 man joint-operational force performing combat operations, to a handful of experts in a specific field advising a foreign military. We don't have a significant presence in all those 140 countries. Aside from that, one could argue that non-interventionism (which you seem to be applying liberally) is an equally bad policy. Over stretching yourself--like we are now--creates challenges and undermines our efforts abroad. However, that doesn't mean that our military isn't required in several places around the globe. With instability, economic potential, and Chinese influence all present in Africa, one could make a very good argument for maintaining a sizable US presence there. Russia is rapidly rebuilding its armed forces through a modernization program aimed at creating a technologically sophisticated military by 2020. Iran actively supports anti-American terrorists, is possibly creating a nuclear weapon, and bullies surrounding Gulf nations through espionage and overt threats. China is exerting more and more influence in the Pacific, which makes our allies uneasy. It's far better for us to try and to integrate China and other Pacific-Asian nations into a wider regional cooperation organization, than sit back and watch an arms race develop. Non-proliferation hinges on America's nuclear deterrent, which would be dismantled under your concept for foreign policy. >That being said, there aren't a lot of cases I can point to where we have created a positive and more effective life for the citizens of a particular country. The no. 1 goal of America is to advance our own interests, not improve the lives of citizens from another nation. You're losing grasp of the purpose of foreign policy by thinking of it in any other way. That said, we do contribute more than any other nation to foreign aid. Our massive military presence, by and large, promotes stability around the globe. As one user pointed out, we fill a power vacuum. If we were to disappear, the return multi-polarism would be devastating. Regional powers would vye for influence, conflict would become more common, and the global economy would suffer. A book called *Strategic Vision* goes into great detail about how the world would be negatively affected by America returning to non-interventionism. Also, diaspora initiatives have improved several nations' economies significantly (I'm biting my tongue here, because you're focusing on military policy). >We have assassinated almost a dozen Democratically elected officials. Yes, in geopolitical struggles with countries that were assassinating other democratically elected officials. That was the dirty side of American national security during the Cold War. It was an unfortunate reality of the time. In many cases, though, it was strategically justified. The world of international relations is dominated by *realpolitik*. A lot of interactions between countries revolve around different military, political, and economic power dynamics. Bombings, assassinations, and sanctions are all apart of these complex relationships. However, I will say that there were times when we have unnecessarily overthrown a democratically elected government. Iran and Cambodia both jump into my mind, but there are certainly other examples as well. In my opinion, this doesn't necessitate a non-interventionist policy, but rather a smarter foreign policy in general. We should be more careful about who and what we blow up, in order to minimize political fallout. >We have destroyed trillions of dollars of infrastructure In many cases, that advanced our interests in the region or country. >killed millions of people We have generally fought wars with the principle of minimizing civilian casualties when we can. The average civilian-to-soldier death ratio throughout history is 10 to 1. Find me a conflict in recent history where we have inflicted casualties at a similar rate. Also, most civilian casualties are caused by our enemies. In Afghanistan, for example, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties are inflicted by the taliban and other insurgent groups. Not us. >stagnated various economies America has been a net positive force on the global economy. From the Marshall Plan to diaspora markets, we've helped a ton of countries build or rebuild their economies. Final thought: foreign policy is a cold son of a bitch Edited to change some stuff up. This was a poorly written post, sorry.### Human: > The no. 1 goal of America is to advance our own interests, not improve the lives of citizens from another nation. It would be nice if we could grow out of this. I like how Einstein put it: > Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.### Assistant: The entire purpose of a nation is to advance the interests of itself and its citizens.### Human: but should it be done at the expense of other peoples lives?### Assistant: why not? Human beings have been doing that since we started walking upright. We have out competed other members of the Hominid family. (i.e Neanderthals). Just because we can communicate instantly across the planet doesn't mean we are not competing for the same finite resources. Tribalism has always been our default state.