Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: CMV: even though I'm a straight white male, I'm not oppressing anyone by being professionally successful and I don't owe less "privileged" ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations anything because of the way I was born### Assistant: Knowing and acknowledging your priviledge is not something you have to act on directly or worry about "paying back." Really, there's nothing you can do about it. But just acknowledging that you came from a place of priviledge can subconciously change how you perceive and interact with other people, rather than just evaluating them based on their 'resumes' so to speak. It's great that you're successful, lets say one day you work your way up to upper management. Two candidates are up for a promotion, a white man and a black woman. Your gut tells you the white man as a "safe" candidate, he "fits the mold" of middle management better. Being aware of your hidden prejudices and perceptions of what management *should* be can help you cut through them and evaluate the candidates based on merits alone. The fact that this prejudice exists can impact people's whole careers. Lets say you're hiring an external candidate. You're down to two finalists for the position, a black woman and a white man. While both are more than qualified for the position, the white man has a marginally better resume and again just seems to "be a better fit" for the company. Being aware that he might have gotten the benefit of the doubt in his previous accomplishments/promotions, while the black woman probably had to work harder to get the same acknowledgement, could tip the scales in her favor for the job. This serves to give that person deserved opportunites and to break the mold of what a "middle manager" looks like. EDIT: This is a societal problem and not something that cann't be undone quickly or immediately, certainly not on an individual level, but if everybody (or most people) acknowledge that society is discriminatory, society may become less discriminatory. That's what you should take away from white priviledge.### Human: Do you mean that people have a responsibility to hire a slightly less qualified candidate because she probably had to work harder than her more-qualified white male counterpart?### Assistant: I'm saying that you should take priviledge into acocunt when evaluating the two candidates, especially when considering intangibles. This doesn't mean you have to base all your decisions on one criteria. There are numerous studies that say [men are perceived as more competent than women despite having similar credentials](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leonie_Huddy/publication/267155069_Gender_Stereotypes_and_the_Perception_of_Male_and_Female_Candidates/links/5446b18f0cf2f14fb8111a7b.pdf). Being aware that this subconsious prejudice exists can help you cut through the bullshit. In the case of hiring an external candidate for middle management, a black woman who was promoted to supervisor vs. a white man who was promoted to supervisor as the finalists. The black woman probably had to fight against this unconscious prejudice to get her promotion. This *may* be an indicator that she *is* better qualified, even though it doesn't show on her resume, (maybe she went to Unprestigious State while he went to Good Private University, or worked at Medium Sized Local while he's coming from Fortune 100.) EDIT: To provide a more tangible real world example, lets say two teams hire two different coaches. One coach came into a 8-8 team and turned them into a 11-5 team. The other coach took an 2-14 team and turned them into a 9-7 team. Which one is the better coach?### Human: ∆ This is an appropriate way to manage my impact on equality, never considered it before.### Assistant: This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text ([comment rule 4](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4)). Please include an explanation for how /u/MontiBurns changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: CMV: If Hillary Clinton is president, I don't think she will lead a transparent administration.### Assistant: what is the standard you want to achieve? No president has been transparent. so why hold H.R.C to a higher standard? I think the bigger issue is why presidents aren't transparent, not why one might or might not be.### Human: I think that for all of Obama's failings, Clinton will still lead a less transparent administration than him. So not taking another step backwards would be nice.### Assistant: in what way would she be less transparent?### Human: Obama has been criticized for secrecy when it comes to FOIA requests, media access, and other issues that you can read about if you spend some time on google reading why he has been so disappointing when it comes to transparency. I think Clinton will continue these disappointments to an even greater degree because she just doesn't care. Obama at least tried to make some reforms that actually were positive. Clinton hasn't talked about any such reforms, and her behavior shows me she has no intention of being transparent. Also, this view is not a vacuum between her and previous presidents. There is also her current challenger who I must evaluate against her history of secrecy. Why do you think, given her behavior this campaign, that we can expect her to be more or even the same level of transparency as Obama?### Assistant: In what way would she be less transparent *than most/all previous presidents*?### Human: He's asking you to change his view that she won't run a transparent administration, not to change his view that she's going to be more or less transparent than other administrations. Your question seems pretty pointless.

### Human: CMV: Dexter Morgan only did two things wrong: One, he was too eager to kill without substantial evidence. Two, the code was wrongly ordered.### Assistant: Just because he had a lust for killing doesn't give him allowance to act out on it. The moral thing to do when you have bloodlust killings is to go to a psychiatrist admit you have a (severe) problem and get some sort of help. I do realize that he was trained by his father into his lifestyle so yes it is understandable that he ended up in his situation as an adult serial-killer but that doesn't absolve him from the fact that doing what he does is inherently amoral.### Human: >The moral thing to do when you have bloodlust killings is to go to a psychiatrist admit you have a (severe) problem and get some sort of help. I agree. But Dexter was taught that it was a permanent condition, so from his point of view this was essentially equivalent to committing suicide as he would be locked up in a psychiatric facility forever. > that doesn't absolve him from the fact that doing what he does is essentially amoral. Amoral!?? The code was built around societal standards of morality so Dexter definitely knew that what he was doing was "wrong." His actions were definitely immoral from both our standpoint and his.### Assistant: Yes he would run the serious risk of being locked up and that would suck pretty hard. But, I disagree that it would have been the same as committing suicide for him. With the intellect and smarts he possessed he should at least have made an attempt to reach out and try for a third option. Instead, he never really seemed to cared about changing anything, it was more like "well dad said it's a thing so I suppose I just kill everyone around me for the rest of my life". He wanted it both, the good life with sis and relationships but simultaneously also killing people in secret, and the whole "vague medical condition" thing was more his personal excuse to avoid making a tough choice.### Human: >Yes he would run the serious risk of being locked up and that would suck pretty hard. But, I disagree that it would have been the same as committing suicide for him. It's not just the risk of being locked up, it's the fact that the psychiatrist is obligated to notify the authorities. Especially since the only time he would have been able to do this is after Harry died, at which point he was no longer a juvenile. Hence the police would know that he was a potential suspect for every non-gang-related murder. For someone who *needs* to kill, the police suspecting you of every murder would destroy your ability to kill those who supposedly deserve it without detection, assuming there is no treatment (which is what Dexter did). He believed that there was no treatment, so it's reasonable to assume that he believed it would have been equivalent to suicide. > Instead, he never really seemed to cared about changing anything, it was more like "well dad said it's a thing so I suppose I just kill everyone around me for the rest of my life" Remember, that we're looking at a 30+ year old Dexter. He did try and control it as a kid but he failed. Harry tried to teach him to use it to hunt instead, but he still felt the need to kill people. 10 years of trying to curb a desire without success, most people would accept reality.### Assistant: Dexter is smart enough that he could have figured out at what point a psychiatrist is obligated to report you to the police, and still talked to one while controlling what he says to stay well clear of that line. I know he *thinks* he is uncurable, but does that justify never even making an attempt to see if someone with actual psychiatric training has useful advice?### Human: Dexter went to medical school and graduated at the top of his class. There is a mental health component to nearly all medical degrees, so he would have, at the very least, had a basic understanding of psychology and mental health. Also, killing is a huge part of his life. It is unreasonable to assume that during his years in medical school, he didn't look into psychopathy/sociopathy himself. If during medical school he learned that there was no real possibility of treatment, why would he take the risk of exposing himself?### Assistant: It seems questionable that someone would be able to definitively conclude that their own psychological condition is incurable simply from the mental health component of their degree relating to forensic science. On the other hand, that requires about the same level of suspension of disbelief that it does to accept that Dexter Morgan is somehow able to regularly perform criminal investigations more thorough and conclusive than the police in his spare time. So I suppose I can accept that explanation as true in a vague, 'don't think too hard about it' way.### Human: > It seems questionable that someone would be able to definitively conclude that their own psychological condition is incurable simply from the mental health component of their degree relating to forensic science. It wasn't a forensic science degree, it was a medical degree. But as I said, killing is a very big part of his life. It would be ridiculous to think that despite the fact he was in medical school, surrounded by books regarding mental health and psychopathy, that he wouldn't read about it. Ask anyone who has cancer or any other serious medical condition that they deal with every day, they're generally experts on their condition. This coupled with the fact that his father taught him that he couldn't change... You can be fairly sure that he believed that he couldn't. Moreover, he said several times in the show that his "dark passenger" was inescapable.### Assistant: > It wasn't a forensic science degree, it was a medical degree. But as I said, killing is a very big part of his life. It would be ridiculous to think that despite the fact he was in medical school, surrounded by books regarding mental health and psychopathy, that he wouldn't read about it. Ask anyone who has cancer or any other serious medical condition that they deal with every day, they're generally experts on their condition. I don't believe even actual psychiatrists trust themselves enough to make a self-diagnosis. And while the fact that his father said that he couldn't change is certainly not any rational reason to base a decision on, it certainly is the kind of thing a person would realistically use to justify their choice if they didn't actually want to make an effort to change. So I suppose I could accept either explanation: Either Dexter is rationalizing his choices, or it's Hollywood psychology and you shouldn't give it that much thought.

### Human: CMV: I believe being born into a low income family is less of a disadvantage than being born physically unattractive.### Assistant: I think the perfect way to change your view is to imagine 2 scenarios. You have a person born into a rich family who is unattractive, and a person born into a low income family who is attractive. In this scenario these 2 each are white, male and get identical grades in high school. Now it is very likely that the person born into a rich family goes to a much better school, because they either grew up in a better neighborhood or went to a private school. Attractive low income family person is immediately put at a disadvantage because even though he gets the same grades as the other person, his location effects the chances he will get. Because of this unattractive rich person has a much better chance of getting into a nice college, or any college for that matter. The attractive poor person can't afford a nice college, and even if they could their chances of getting into that college are small because their high school was weak. Unattractive rich person graduates from college with some degree, while attractive poor person can barely afford community college gets, in the best case scenario, an associates degree. The amount of job opportunities for a 4 year degree are much higher than those of a 2 year degree. Yes the unattractive person may have a disadvantage in job interviews, but he would still earn far more interviews than the attractive person simply because of his status. Yes the attractive person may be better at job interviews, but once again he will get far fewer job interviews in the first place than unattractive person.### Human: I think you make some good points, but my issue is that, in your scenario, you used 2 extremes when comparing wealth but an ambiguous difference in attractiveness. It's a matter of weighing the two privileges and thinking about which has a greater effect on success, but I'm not sure your comparison considers both equally.### Assistant: because attractiveness has no impact on your success in high school and college, at least in terms of grades and test scores. Which I think proves my point. Attractiveness comes into play when doing job interviews, but wealth impacts your ability to get into those job interviews.### Human: > because attractiveness has no impact on your success in high school and college, at least in terms of grades and test scores Well, attractiveness could make building relationships with your teachers and professors easier, which could make a difference between a B+ and an A- or any other grades on the cusp. Over the long term these could potentially add up. I know this might be a stretch, but these are still things to be considered. To illustrate my point further, imagine an inverse scenario in which you have a person born into a middle class family who is absolutely, unequivocally, fuck-ugly. His face is asymmetrical, his crooked nose takes up 75% of his face, and he cuts his hair like a monk from the middle ages. On the other hand, you have someone from the lower middle class who grows up looking like Brad Pitt. Who would have a greater advantage here? tl;dr There's a point at which privilege from physical attractiveness trumps privilege from wealth.### Assistant: > Well, attractiveness could make building relationships with your teachers and professors easier, which could make a difference between a B+ and an A- or any other grades on the cusp. Over the long term these could potentially add up. I know this might be a stretch, but these are still things to be considered. Say you're right, and it's the difference between a B+ and an A- in every single class this attractive dude is in. He still graduates with an associates degree, which is still far less respected than the 4 year degree the unattractive person finished with. >To illustrate my point further, imagine an inverse scenario in which you have a person born into a middle class family who is absolutely, unequivocally, fuck-ugly. His face is asymmetrical, his crooked nose takes up 75% of his face, and he cuts his hair like a monk from the middle ages. On the other hand, you have someone from the lower middle class who grows up looking like Brad Pitt. Who would have a greater advantage here? Well each of them can go to the same level college and get the same general degrees, meaning each will obtain the same job interviews, so the attractive one would be a bit more successful because of his ability in job interviews. But that's not the when we're comparing wealth to attractiveness it doesn't make any sense to almost completely eliminate any discrepancy in the wealth, that makes the comparison worthless.

### Human: CMV:Me think Grog should switch cave with me.### Assistant: Big cave cold. Small cave get warm and cozy. Wait for cold time. Grog alone. Grog no women for cuddle. Grog no hunt for fur. Let Grog have big cage. Problem will be solution soon.### Human: Me an Woman no have room for ugga-ugga. Have to only do one way. Hurt me and woman relationship. Woman may have young me's soon. Will need more room.### Assistant: Maybe avoid conflict with Grog. Ask him to find even bigger cave or you will club him! Win situation for you.### Human: Me want to avoid clubbing Grog. Me feel kind of sorry for him. Him not like us. Him not all there. Me try to convince him to stay in old people cave, but he say he need space to rub sticks and hit rocks. Says he make way to bring mammoth home faster and way to make cave stay warm. Me think he nuts.### Assistant: Maybe give Grog benefit of the doubt! Stubborn caveman!### Human: Maybe give headcrab clubbing on the head. Stubborn headcrab. Always trying to eat brain.

### Human: I think the concept of everyone getting a job and making money is fucked up and restricts our lives more than we think. CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: ∆ This comment truly changed my view, mainly because of the way you worded it. You just put it into a very realistic perspective that was easy for me to understand and agree with.### Assistant: I don't mean to be insulting but did you not learn this simple explanation in middle school or even elementary school??!! I seriously heard this exact same analogy for what an economy is and why specialization changed the world about 10 times before the age of 14...### Human: You are being insulting and no I haven't... isn't it kind of obvious that I haven't since I'm talking about it here?### Assistant: See also Platos Republic, specifically the part where Socrates explains the city state origin story.

### Human: CMV: America spends an unreasonable amount of money on pro sports that could be much more beneficial almost anywhere else.### Assistant: I have no clue why tax payer money is spend on sports, but I'm guessing it generates more money than what is spent. As for consumers, pro-sports are a form of entertainment just like anything else. And it might seem "unreasonable" to spend so much money on entertainment, until your realize you xbox or television could feed an African family for weeks. People work hard for their money, they want to enjoy it, not donate it.### Human: >I have no clue why tax payer money is spend on sports Because the fans (tax payers) usually have an emotional attachment to the local team and it is politically unpopular to allow that team to relocate. This empowers the league and owners to get concessions from the city for building the stadium/arena under the threat of relocation. The argument that a new stadium will pay for itself in additional tax revenues is largely unsupported. There needs to be a special case (like placing the stadium in a blighted area) for there to be major effects.### Assistant: [The NFL is the most profitable Non-Profit ever to exist almost solely off the taxpayers back.](http://i.imgur.com/OT3ZhNp.png)### Human: The NFL is a pass through organization which sends nearly all earnings to the constituent teams (who then pay taxes). The non-profit status of the actual league is basically irrelevant. As a side note the pay of league managers is *also* largely irrelevant. Salaries are a cost and therefore count against taxable profit. Additionally Goodell and co. pay income taxes on their earnings. The non-profit status of the NFL is largely a canard that adds nothing to the discussion. There are legitimate concerns about whether or not it is sensibly to publicly finance or subsidize stadiums. There isn't a legitimate concern that the NFL isn't paying sufficient taxes due to the status of the parent league.### Assistant: The NFL gets many tax credits/exemptions and help from the tax payer because of their status, I do not think it is an irrelevant matter. My point was not that the NFL is dodging taxes, my point was that the NFL makes ludicrous amounts of money and yet still stadiums and what not get paid for off the taxpayers back. As for saying them in the state and having players worth millions in your state and having all those ticket sales and income taxes and property taxes will make up for the fact that tax payers are shelling out 600+ million for a stadium is what is called Trickle Down economics, Reagan tried that in the 80s, it didn't work out so well.### Human: >My point was not that the NFL is dodging taxes, my point was that the NFL makes ludicrous amounts of money and yet still stadiums and what not get paid for off the taxpayers back. Which is a completely fair and legitimate criticism. However that's completely unrelated to the fact that the league is a "non-profit" - which makes it sound like all league revenue goes untaxed (when in reality the teams pay the taxes). And I fully agree that stadium subsidies are not, usually, economically beneficial. It requires a very specific situation (namely the construction of a stadium in a blighted part of town) to have such things pan out. However Stadium subsidies aren't usually about the greedy owners swindling the stupid politicians. It's about the Greedy owners leveraging the fact that *it is politically unpopular to have a team relocate*. If you have a popular sports franchise that the community identifies with it's political suicide to let the team walk.

### Human: CMV:I despise "rappers" that only rap about money, clubs, guns, etc.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You have to see OP's point even if you dont agree with it. Yes there would still be gun violence and what not but I'm also quite annoyed with rap of this subject matter because stuff on the radio is not about true stories of growing up in the hood. It's more about illustrating how fucked up they can get and how many girls the can Fuck and I think there's just not that much substance. I know it sounds biased but honestly what message do you get from listening to 2 chainz? It's completely understandable to explain the troubles you experienced as a person but advocating the use of codeine and other hard drugs serves no artistic purpose except for spicing up the rhyme scheme. I feel like OP makes a valid point it's just too general.### Assistant: I have to ask, what radio are you listening to? Mainstream radio? Rap radio? If it's mainstream (pop) radio than the entire argument can stop here. There is a lot of catchy pop rap I like (2 Chainz on Talk Dirty, Juicy J on Dark Horse) but they're hardly a way to define the genre. No rapper tries to make genre defining music for the pop radio. Lollipop is not Lil Wayne's best or most important song even if it was a massive hit. I recommend the song I Feel Like Dying by Lil Wayne, or Six Foot Seven Foot, which while being a massive chart smash, has some clever one liners and was IMO the best song off that LP. Anyway, if rap artists talked about sunshine and rainbows they would be lying to everyone. Their lives aren't/weren't perfect and no amount of current success can change this. Also 2 Chainz has some good songs, he isn't exactly deep lyrically but he isn't trying to be, and why should he? There are a million deep rappers with deep lyrics and deep messages.### Human: Just 107.9 and 88.1 but you're right, that's probably my main issue because I tend to like more lyrically deep artists I guess it just doesn't do it for me. I know that doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it is just hard for me to understand why?### Assistant: > Just 107.9 and 88.1 These channels change depending on area. Your 107.9 is not my 107.9, Radio broadcasts are not worldwide/nationwide, so it might help defining what those frequencies play in your area.

### Human: CMV: Lord of the Rings are great films, but it is not a good trilogy### Assistant: I think this is more of a conversation concerning structure, rather than quality. I'm not sure why the structure of a trilogy means it is good or bad necessarily. There are a lot of ways to tell a story, and LOTR is more like an epic than it is a movie. The books themselves are actually broken up into six parts, and it tells the story of Frodo and the Ring in more of an episodic sort of way. It's about the whole journey. If you enjoy the thing as a whole, then I think it's fair to say its a good trilogy. Do you think the only good television shows are ones where each episode works on its own? Trilogies are a whole, to be judged as a whole. We already have a name for individual works that we judge them by - movies. Can you provide more examples of good trilogies?### Human: >I think this is more of a conversation concerning structure, rather than quality. Yes, it is indeed a question of structure, because movies themselves are good, and whether the structure matches the story. Because as a story, it is one story, not three separate, complemeting stories. >Do you think the only good television shows are ones where each episode works on its own? Not at all. The story structure is inherently different in those two mediums. But any good trilogy, whether movie or album, has to work in both the state it was released in (separately) and in retrospect (all together). >Trilogies are a whole, to be judged as a whole. And separately. If it's only one whole thing, then it's also only one story, and may only be consider a trilogy due to technical or promotional structure choices. I think there is a difference between a story released in three parts, and a story in trilogy format. Trilogy has both sides, and when we evaluate any trilogy we evaluate both the big picture and all the individual films. Let's say we have a three-course meal. By its definition, this meal consists of three parts, and when we evaluate the meal, we evaluate the three parts it consists of. You cannot evaluate the meal without its parts. But if we get one piece of the meal now, the other one a year from now, and the last one two years from now, and they all need the other two parts work, I cannot say that the meal was good. I can say that individual pieces of the meal were tasty, but because each part of the meal depended so much on the other parts, I cannot say the meal was good. >Can you provide more examples of good trilogies? Frankly, there ain't that many, but for the argument's sake I'll say the Dark Knight trilogy.### Assistant: > Yes, it is indeed a question of structure, because movies themselves are good, and whether the structure matches the story. Because as a story, it is one story, not three separate, complemeting stories. I suppose my point here is a resounding, "so what?" What does it matter if something you enjoy has one structure over another? > Not at all. The story structure is inherently different in those two mediums. But any good trilogy, whether movie or album, has to work in both the state it was released in (separately) and in retrospect (all together). Do they have to work separately to be good, though? > And separately. If it's only one whole thing, then it's also only one story, and may only be consider a trilogy due to technical or promotional structure choices. I think there is a difference between a story released in three parts, and a story in trilogy format. Trilogy has both sides, and when we evaluate any trilogy we evaluate both the big picture and all the individual films. A trilogy is just a series of three movies. They might have any number of structures. From very loosely-related like the [Cornetto Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Flavours_Cornetto_trilogy) to very much interlaced like LOTR. I'm not seeing why one is inherently better than the other. Sometimes a story requires a longer format, even if that story is told through movies. > Let's say we have a three-course meal. By its definition, this meal consists of three parts, and when we evaluate the meal, we evaluate the three parts it consists of. You cannot evaluate the meal without its parts. > But if we get one piece of the meal now, the other one a year from now, and the last one two years from now, and they all need the other two parts work, I cannot say that the meal was good. I can say that individual parts of the meal were tasty, but because each part of the meal depends so much on other parts, I cannot say the meal was good. See, now you're talking about release dates. Do you think LOTR would have been better if all three movies were released at the same time? I'm also not following your analogy. We'll wait for continuing stories, as evidenced both by television and by LOTR. Serialized entertainment has been around forever. > Frankly, there ain't that many, but for arguments sake I'll say Dark Knight trilogy. There are very few. In fact, *most* trilogies follow a structure closer to LOTR than The Dark Knight or the aforementioned Cornetto trilogy. I would argue that they're exceptions to the typical trilogy structure, rather than the standard by which to judge all other trilogies.### Human: >I suppose my point here is a resounding, "so what?" What does it matter if something you enjoy has one structure over another? Well, that's the point of this CMV. Debate about structure. I think you can answer any CMV with, so what, what does it matter?, but that's not very fruitful approach, is it? >Do they have to work separately to be good, though? For TV-series to be good? No. But like I said, different mediums, inherently different rules. >A trilogy is just a series of three movies. They might have any number of structures. From very loosely-related like the Cornetto Trilogy to very much interlaced like LOTR. I'm not seeing why one is inherently better than the other. I disagree. I don't think Cornetto trilogy is a good trilogy. It's a series of three good films. Watching more than one, or all three, does not give you any additional value or appreciation for the trilogy, except, well I liked the films themselves. From my view, watching all parts of the trilogy gives you more appreciation or understanding of the story, but you can still enjoy each film on its own, as they work on their own. No one knows if you ever get to finish your story. >See, now you're talking about release dates. Do you think LOTR would have been better if all three movies were released at the same time? As a story, if we would have had one complete story for the get-go, hmmm, from story perspective, it would have made the most sense. Because it is one story. Another good trilogy (presumedly, haven't seen the third one yet): Planet of the Apes.### Assistant: > Well, that's the point of this CMV. Debate about structure. I think you can answer any CMV with, so what, what does it matter?, but that's not very fruitful approach, is it? It's a question. I'd like to know why you think the structure is wrong for trilogies. > For TV-series to be good? No. But like I said, different mediums, inherently different rules. A movie trilogy has but one rule: be three movies. > I disagree. I don't think Cornetto trilogy is a good trilogy. It's a series of three good films. Watching more than one, or all three, does not give you any additional value or appreciation for the trilogy, except, well I liked the films themselves. From my view, watching all parts of the trilogy gives you more appreciation or understanding of the story, but you can still enjoy each film on its own, as they work on their own. No one knows if you ever get to finish your story. Let me put it another way. What is bad about this type of structure of the LOTR structure? Why does a trilogy have to perfectly balance both its long arc and its three shorter arcs to be considered good? Why can't we consider trilogies that have different structures to also be good? > As a story, if we would have had one complete story for the get-go, hmmm, from story perspective, it would have made the most sense. Because it is one story. So right now you do have access to all three at once. Why do the release dates matter? The books were released slowly in six parts. The crux of my argument is that using the movie trilogy structure of three movies to tell a long story is perfectly acceptable. It's a medium that even allows for long-form story telling. They're three movies that total out to about 12 hours worth of content (extended cuts). 12 hours of good and compelling content. I see no reason to consider it a "bad trilogy" based on arbitrary metrics like structure.### Human: >A movie trilogy has but one rule: be three movies. Here we disagree. Three movies =/= trilogy. Or to be more specific, three good movies =/= good trilogy. If I take random three books from a book store, is it a book trilogy? No. If they are written by the same author? Still no. What if it's one story, with same characters, in three physical parts? Then it's one book in three volumes. If Quentin Tarantino had died in 2000, I wouldn't call his first three movies a trilogy. They share actors and director, but they are not related in any substantial way (fan theories aside). >Let me put it another way. What is bad about this type of structure of the LOTR structure? Why does a trilogy have to perfectly balance both its long arc and its three shorter arcs to be considered good? Why can't we consider trilogies that have different structures to also be good? Well, it's not inherently bad. Just like having a cone with three balls of ice cream is not inherently worse than having three cones with each having one ball of ice cream. Different structures that work for different purposes and needs. >So right now you do have access to all three at once. Why do the release dates matter? Because people consider it to be good trilogy, when it is one good movie in three volumes, basically. It's not a big thing, I admit, but I like to argue semantics. >The books were released slowly in six parts. Gonna correct you here: Three parts, three volumes, with each one containing two "books". And Tolkien wanted it to be released all at once, because that's how he wrote it to be read. The books are not a good trilogy either. They are a good book, good story released in three volumes. >The crux of my argument is that using the movie trilogy structure of three movies to tell a long story is perfectly acceptable. It's a medium that even allows for long-form story telling. They're three movies that total out to about 12 hours worth of content (extended cuts). 12 hours of good and compelling content. I see no reason to consider it a "bad trilogy" based on arbitrary metrics like structure. It's not a bad series of movies. Movies are good. It is a good epic. And it is 100% acceptable to split your movie in three parts. But it doesn't work as a trilogy, because it is a single story, split into three and doesn't serve all the functions of the trilogy, as I see them (mainly working both as separate films and as a larger whole. LOTR works only as a larger whole).### Assistant: > If I take random three books from a book store, is it a book trilogy? No. If they are written by the same author? Still no. What if it's one story, with same characters, in three physical parts? Then it's one book in three volumes. This is not how books work, it is not how movies work, it is not how trilogies work. > If Quentin Tarantino had died in 2000, I wouldn't call his first three movies a trilogy. They share actors and director, but they are not related in any substantial way (fan theories aside). First off, it's well established that there are a few links between Tarantino movies. Secondly, you could very well describe his first three movies as a "trilogy" because trilogy is an arbitrary term referring to a group of three related things. Be that relation directors, actors, stories, authors, whatever. > Well, it's not inherently bad. Just like having a cone with three balls of ice cream is not inherently worse than having three cones with each having one ball of ice cream. Different structures that work for different purposes and needs. You're saying it inherently means it is a bad trilogy. That the movie trilogy structure doesn't work for this type of story. But I think its existence and popularity tells a different story. > Because people consider it to be good trilogy, when it is one good movie in three volumes, basically. It's not a big thing, I admit, but I like to argue semantics. They are very clearly three distinct movies all telling one overarching story. > Gonna correct you here: Three parts, three volumes, with each one containing two "books". And Tolkien wanted it to be released all at once, because that's how he wrote it to be read. The books are not a good trilogy either. They are a good book, good story released in three volumes. They are a good trilogy of volumes. > It's not a bad series of movies. Movies are good. It is a good epic. And it is 100% acceptable to split your movie in three parts. But it doesn't work as a trilogy, because it is a single story, split into three and doesn't serve all the functions of the trilogy, as I see them. But it isn't one movie in three parts. It's three movies telling one over arching story. I'm not sure what you're not getting at this point. Three movies are a trilogy. That's just how that word works. You say you like to argue semantics, well lets see it! Semantics is more than just making up definitions for things. Does that mean the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy is actually just two movies? Are Terminator one and two actually one movie as well? Is Pulp Fiction actually not a movie because of its structure?### Human: >This is not how books work, it is not how movies work, it is not how trilogies work. This is what you argued. You said: >A movie trilogy has but one rule: be three movies. You are conflicting with yourself. So apparently there is more rules? Being three something is not enough? >First off, it's well established that there are a few links between Tarantino movies. Secondly, you could very well describe his first three movies as a "trilogy" because trilogy is an arbitrary term referring to a group of three related things. Be that relation directors, actors, stories, authors, whatever. I disagree (or used to, check other posts). Trilogy is not simply three things by same author. Is 1941, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. = Spielberg trilogy? No. Same author, released consecutively, not a trilogy. >You're saying it inherently means it is a bad trilogy. That the movie trilogy structure doesn't work for this type of story. But I think its existence and popularity tells a different story. I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it doesn't serve the function of being trilogy, which I defined earlier, therefore it's a bad trilogy. Just like shoe is a bad hammer. >They are very clearly three **distinct** movies all telling one overarching story. That's my point! They are not distinct. They are clearly one whole, and only one whole. Feel free to argue otherwise. This is what I wanted to hear. >They are a good trilogy of volumes. Trilogy of volumes? Please. Or, you know, a good story released in three volumes. >But it isn't one movie in three parts. It's three movies telling one over arching story. It is exactly that! One story, three parts/volumes/movies. >Is Pulp Fiction actually not a movie because of its structure? It is. Many movies have multiple storylines and archs. >Are Terminator one and two actually one movie as well? Nope, two movies, two stories, each with their own distinct beginning, middle and end. If T2 never came out, T1 would have been fine on its own. >Does that mean the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy is actually just two movies? Well well well! This is much more interesting question. First movie is clearly it's own thing. Hmm. I'd argue that yeah, under my terms, the 2nd and 3rd Pirate-movies are actually just one movie in two parts. Is it silly? Yes. Logical? I'd say so.### Assistant: > You are conflicting with yourself. So apparently there is more rules? Being three something is not enough? Nope. You can call any set of three movies a trilogy. > I disagree (or used to, check other posts). Trilogy is not simply three things by same author. A trilogy is a word that has many uses. In this case, LOTR is literally a movie trilogy. > I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it doesn't serve the function of being trilogy, which I defined earlier, therefore it's a bad trilogy. Just like shoe is a bad hammer. It serves the function of a trilogy just fine. > Trilogy of volumes? Please. Or, you know, a good story released in three volumes. Please what? Why are you king of the word "trilogy" all of a sudden? > It is exactly that! One story, three parts/volumes/movies. Yes, three movies. A movie trilogy. > Well well well! This is much more interesting question. First movie is clearly it's own thing. Hmm. I'd argue that yeah, under my terms, the 2nd and 3rd Pirate-movies are actually just one movie in two parts. Is it silly? Yes. Logical? I'd say so. It's ridiculous. Define a movie.### Human: >Nope. You can call any set of three movies a trilogy. So 1941, Raiders and E.T. are a trilogy?### Assistant: Alright, so pretend you're writing an academic paper about these three movies. And at some point in your paper, you say something like, "the trilogy of films discussed here..." Do you think that's improper English? Do you think the point is lost? I think the audience would recognize that the term refers to the three movies the person is writing about. Trilogy, as colloquially used for movies, refers to three movies that usually take place in the same shared universe. Star Wars is comprised of two trilogies, soon to be three, and now at least one standalone movie. Or you could say it's one sextilogy. Or whatever. It's arbitrary. LOTR is commonly understood as a movie trilogy because it's three movies, and yes they are separate and independent movies that even have their own beginnings, middles, and ends, and it all takes place along the same journey. It's a movie trilogy. Three movies = trilogy.### Human: You are right about other stuff. Three movies that take in place universe are usually a trilogy. Not gonna argue that. Trilogy is a term many people use and understand. Not gonna argue with that either, though it only means that is widely know term, not that it's the correct term. >LOTR is commonly understood as a movie trilogy because it's three movies, and yes they are separate and independent movies that even have their own beginnings, middles, and ends, and it all takes place along the same journey. It's a movie trilogy. Three movies = trilogy. But care to elaborate here. Like I said, I fail to see how three movies in LOTR are distinct, separate or independent story-wise. This is the argument I wanted to hear, tbh. I don't think any storyline or character arch reaches a conclusion within any single movie, except if the character dies. To me, they all tell 1/3 of one story.### Assistant: They're not independent *story-wise*. They're independent in that they contain rising action, climaxes, and falling action. There's also a series of smaller stories throughout. The entire sequence of the Mines of Moria is rising action as they explore the mines, a climax with a big battle, and falling action when Gandalf is killed and they make it to Lothlorien. That's one story within the larger, overarching one of Bilbo's quest. And these smaller adventures are all over the place. It is correct to use the term trilogy, because the story is presented to us in three movies. Fellowship, Two Towers, Return. It's really not that hard to find the beginning, middles, and ends of these movies.### Human: Yes, they are scenes. Scenes that begin, have middles and ends in those movies. Storylines and character arcs really don't. The central questions are unanswered until the end of the last movie. Even some very big plotlines (like Battle for Rohan) spill to other movies. The fate of the Fellowship is the only big storyline I can think of that ends when a movie ends. Anyway, thanks for the debate.### Assistant: You don't think the fate of Rohan is a storyline that ends?### Human: Not really. Saruman is defeated, but still alive, so is Wormtongue. The original mission of Aragorn and Co. (reach Merri and Pippin) is still unsolved by the end of the movie. King Theoden's story is still very much unfinished, and he dies in the next movie, and Eowyn's arc that started in Two Towers doesn't reach its conclusion until Pelennor fields. Biggest battle ends, but we do not know what came of it, until the next movie begins.### Assistant: Right, but Helms Deep is defended and the people of Rohan are saved. Aragorn and co's entire plotline in the Two Towers is about saving the people of Rohan from the imminent attack by the Uruk-hai.### Human: Hmm, true. Fine, have a delta. You deserve it for perseverance. ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BenIncognito ([119∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BenIncognito)). ^[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": "BenIncognito" } DB3PARAMSEND)

### Human: CMV: Skipping is the most underrated form of travel### Assistant: >One quick example is noted in JRR Tolkien historic novella, "Lord of the Rings," as the orcs, the bad guys, NEVER skip (no citations needed). Not once. That's why they're so angry You are right: orcs do not skip. Neither do any of the positive characters. But you know who does skip? Gollum, that's who. "'Yes, yes,' agreed Gollum, **skipping about**. Off we go! There's only one way across between North-end and the South-end. I found it, I did. orcs don't use it...." Of course, as we all know, that "way" was an ambush, and Gollum intended for Sam and Frodo to get eaten by Shelob when passing that "way." Since Gollum skips about while trying to deceive the good guys, it leads me to believe that skipping is a representation of inpatient, mischievous, even dishonest intentions. I would never trust words of a person who is seen skipping. Thus skipping should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously and trusted.### Human: Oh man... my entire novella theory crumbles under the weight of Smeagol. Tricksy, hobbitses... Let me time to defer and I'll ponder this new revelation. EDIT: Deferring worked, as this post counters his counter. http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2eqqn4/cmv_skipping_is_the_most_underrated_form_of_travel/ck25oil### Assistant: Not really on topic, but I just wanted to say this is probably my favorite one of these I've read in a long time. Thanks OP.### Human: That's because you have good taste### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: The US should abandon the practice of tipping because it creates unnecessary tension by giving customers the opportunity to be jerks at the expense of the staff and not the manager/restaurant owner.### Assistant: Here in Australia there is a cultural belief in not tipping. Restaurants pay wait staff between 18 to 22 dollars an hour depending on the shift they are working. The result of this is that an entre at a Chinese restaurant might be 15 to 18 dollars and at a regular sit down restaurant might be 24 to 30 dollars. And up of course. That is the upside. The down side is that generally the service is no where near as good as it was in most places where I was dining in America. On a few occasions over the years we have have outstanding service here, but mostly it is grudgingly done. So for the most part, the tip system does result in better service.### Human: I disagree that service is good in US restaurants; I would instead say it's merely fast. I have never got a sense in an American restaurant that the server is trying to give me the best experience possible, only that he/she is trying to get me through my meal as quick as possible, to increase their nightly income. It's not an uncommon practice to bring the customer's check to their table before they've asked for it, or to begin clearing plates from tables before everyone has finished eating, two things considered incredibly rude elsewhere. If youre looking to eat and get on with your night, this type of service is great. But If I pay $100 for a meal for two people, I want to sit and enjoy it, not feel like I'm putting the server out by taking my time.### Assistant: Another good reason against tipping as practiced currently. Turning that table is essential to that server making money. Pay them fairly upfront and there is no incentive to see you move any quicker.### Human: At the same time, not tipping could mean that they have no incentive to get you your food quickly, and you end up waiting for 20 minutes before the waiter/waitress gets to you, or constantly trying to flag one of them down if you want a refill on your drink, or something like that.### Assistant: The only people around here that get to go to work and truly slack off for any period of time are the office pukes that this place thrives on. Might that be you? The rest of the blue collar world has some asshole manager making sure they're on their feet and getting shit done. No flipping between tabs on the browser to mask table three walking out pissed because the server let the food sit in the window or something. That's nuts and you obviously have no concept of how a restaurant works. Imagine going to work, doing the same job day in day out within reason, but never knowing how much you were really going to make. Or having part of your customers subsidizing the experience of other customers.

### Human: I believe that we live in a society where women are almost always treated as a victim and men are almost always treated as the aggressor. CMV.### Assistant: > society seems to favor women as victims and men as aggressors Well, yeah. In crimes between genders, the more violent the encounter, the more likely it is that a man is the aggressor. Murder someone? 9x as more likely to be a man.[^[1, ^Table ^5]](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) Man killing woman? 2x as likely as a woman killing a man. Women are more likely to report being assaulted by an intimate, more likely to be injured in an assault.^[[2]](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf) If you think that women are really (on the whole) as aggressive and violent as men, you need some serious data to back that up.### Human: I am aware of those types of stats. That's not my concern. What is my concern is the tendency to weigh in favor of girls over boys in most situations. While men are more likely to be physically violent and are often the physical aggressors in most cases. Women, on the other hand, are more passive aggressive using words as their weapon of choice. What I am after is a reason to believe that men and women are on an equal playing field and not one that is slanted towards one sex or the other.### Assistant: > What I am after is a reason to believe that men and women are on an equal playing field and not one that is slanted towards one sex or the other. Alright, [Casey Anthony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Anthony). [The case of a man raped by 4 women in Canada](http://www.policymic.com/articles/33593/canadian-man-sexually-assaulted-by-four-women-showing-rape-goes-both-ways). Particularly, note that they proclaim him coming forward against traditional stereotypes as a good thing. [Here's an article about the decreasing gap in crimes by men and women because of increased prosecution against women](http://fcx.sagepub.com/content/1/1/72.abstract). There's definitely a growing awareness that men can be just as victimized by women, and that it's serious. You will probably always see more men in the news committing crime simply because men commit more crimes. What you're being led astray by is the idea pushed by some rabid Mens Righters that women are just as bad as men in all areas of life. They certainly can act horribly, but in the areas you mentioned (domestic violence, rape), men appear to be on average factually worse than women. This can easily be explained by biological and hormonal differences. This doesn't mean that all men are bad, and all women are good; only the most rabid misandrists would agree with that statement.### Human: This is a completely different issue, but it REALLY irks me when people attribute behavioral differences between men and women as hormonal or innate. Men are socialized to be the warrior, to play GI Joe and fight the bad guy. They're shamed if they don't stand up to the bully. They're raised to be aggressive, assertive, and independent. Furthermore, they're raised thinking that anger is the only appropriate emotion to show. Women, however, as socialized to take other's perspectives. Playing with dolls trains girls to see situations from different eyes. Therefore, women are socialized from a young age to be other oriented, not self-oriented. They are encouraged to express a wide range of emotion, and in fact discouraged from showing anger (it's not "lady-like"). Regarding biology, I'm MTF. I've had hormonal levels of both a man and a woman. I've got to say, the differences aren't nearly as major as people make them out to be. All this said, I apologize that it's off topic, but I hate when people attribute to biology what is more a result of society.### Assistant: I'm honestly not sure how the hormone differences work in MTF, I was going to be basing any T arguments on cases of FTM and clinical trials [like this](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/5/459.abstract) where T has implications on aggression. That being said, culture *does* absolutely have an effect on aggression (and I suspect more than biology). I'm seriously not well-versed enough though to tease out differences between culture and biology, but know just enough to say that both have an effect.

### Human: CMV: If God exists he does not care about humans in any way they could understand or benefit from.### Assistant: Half of Earth's animal species live in tropical rainforests. I don't care about any individual animal, but I do care about them as a collective. I am not going out of my way to kill a snake to protect a frog, but I do go somewhat out of my way to reduce my environmental damage to their ecosystem as a whole. Perhaps this is how God views humanity. He doesn't do anything that directly benefits me and only me, but he does benefit humans, and by extension, me. He likes everyone equally. I don't believe in God because I don't there there is any tangible evidence for His existence. I think that supposedly indisputably true holy books have been proven factually incorrect enough times that I don't think there is value in interpreting the rest of their words. Finally, I think there are better supported explanations for the things God is supposedly responsible for, than the idea of a god. But I don't think that the "Why do bad things happen to good people argument" is very valuable. Ultimately, you can always explain away the idea by just saying we as humans don't comprehend His grand plan, and are limited by our lack of information. You can always craft the idea of a god to account for life's unfortunate occurrences. I just made one up in the last paragraph. By my logic, if God exists, he does care about humans, just not in the way other religions have led you to believe. You should join my religion and follow me instead.### Human: My problem is basically a moral contradiction. I feel like the morality ingrained in my by instinct is correct. My morality dictates I look out for my family. God has hurt my family. Therefore, God is not on my side. I don't care about anything else. That's why I put it in terms of "in any way I could benefit from". My family is the most important thing for me. Someone who puts strangers' well being above my family and friends' is not in accordance with my morality. That means that I shouldn't like them, let alone worship them.### Assistant: Everyone eventually dies. The fact that God gave your family any joyous time at all shows that He cares.### Human: But if God loves us, why wouldn't he give us as much good as is logically possible? That's a lot more good that we have actually received.### Assistant: There was a Twilight Zone Episode where a guy dies and goes to a place where only good things happen to him. He eventually decides he'd rather go to "the other place." It turns out he is already in the other place, meaning Hell. The moral of the story is that getting all good things, where you always know the outcome, is a miserable existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit### Human: But if God is all-powerful, couldn't He create a paradise that doesn't defeat the entire purpose of being a paradise? I understand the meaning of that episode, but when talking about a literally omnipotent god who created the very concept of existence, it's an insult to Him to say that He couldn't make a paradise that doesn't suck.

### Human: CMV: People should be (ethically and legally) allowed to abort children with debilitating birth defects and diseases/conditions on those grounds alone.### Assistant: Do you think that the mother should be allowed to abort any fetus, or just disabled ones?### Human: Yes.### Assistant: Then why are you putting this CMV out? Whether or not the fetus has Down syndrome is irrelevant to the issue. You're just arguing for abortion. UNLESS, you think that only disabled ones should be allowed to be aborted, in which you think fetuses are human, but disabled people aren't. Which is thoroughly disgusting. If that's your logic, then it should stand past birth. Is that your opinion?### Human: Alright, thank you for showing me the logical conclusion of my point. I guess I didn't think of putting that way, and I guess there was no way to change my view. I appreciate it.### Assistant: Whoa OP, dont get swayed by one person who resorts to multiple logical fallacies to conclude that your view can't be changed!

### Human: CMV: Race is a coherent, reality-based, biologically-based concept. It is not a "meaningless social construct."### Assistant: You should watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI) and the second part which deals with the issue from a genetic point of view. In a couple sentences, the conclusion is that grouping genetically, there are either over 100 races (which aren't necessarily related to appearance), or a single human race. Moreover, cosmetic differences are one of the traits with the greatest variation and underlying genetics vary much less than you might think. [This article](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct-origins-census) offers some more societal or historical reasons that race doesn't really make sense. It's important to note that current ideas of race were basically invented to justify slavery and while other cultures have ideas of race and ethnicity, they vary significantly from our own (for example, mixed-race people in Africa are considered distinct from black or white people). Also you mention the medical conditions, sickle-cell anemia is probably the most commonly mentioned in this context. However, the condition is not actually associated with race, but with areas in which malaria is prevalent.### Human: Wait a minute. To justify slavery? Slaves of all races have been used for literally millennia. Please explain your basis for this argument?### Assistant: Slaves of all races have been used for millennia and more often than not there is a racial divide between who is doing the owning and who is being owned.### Human: I'd like some concrete examples, if you don't mind. More than three would be nice.### Assistant: 1- "As the Roman Republic expanded outward, entire populations were enslaved, thus creating an ample supply from all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Greeks, Illyrians, Berbers, Germans, Britons, Thracians, Gauls, Jews, Arabs, and many more were slaves used not only for labour, but also for amusement (e. g. gladiators and sex slaves). This oppression by an elite minority eventually led to slave revolts (see Roman Servile Wars); the Third Servile War led by Spartacus being the most famous and severe." 2- "North African Barbary Pirates engaged in Razzias, raids on European coastal towns, to capture Christian slaves to sell at slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco." 3- "In Algiers, the capital of Algeria in Northern Africa, Christians and Europeans that were captured had been forced into slavery. This eventually led to the Bombardment of Algiers in 1816." 4- "The hill tribe people in Indochina were "hunted incessantly and carried off as slaves by the Siamese (Thai), the Anamites (Vietnamese), and the Cambodians." 5- The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily) beginning during the era of the Arab conquests and continuing through the 19th century. During the 8th and 9th centuries of the Fatimid Caliphate, most of those enslaved were Saqaliba Europeans captured during wars and along European coastlines. 6- The Barbary slave trade refers to the white slave markets that flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, or modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya, between the 16th and 19th centuries. These markets prospered while the states were nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, but in reality they were mostly autonomous. The North African slave markets traded in European slaves. 7- estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast), and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815. The idea that white people invented slavery and were the only ones to perpetuate it is just wrong. The idea that only one group of people was forced into slavery is also wrong.### Human: Thanks for the informative lesson! Very enlightening.

### Human: Anarchism is a stupid idea that won't ever work CMV### Assistant: Anarchist and college kid here. Have you heard the good word? Let me tell you about the possibility of a society where you can do what you want! Jokes aside, I'll try to respond to your criticisms. >When anarchist say "the community will deal with it" seems the same as Paultards saying that the free market will take care of giving to the poor. Keep in mind that the whole point of anarchism is that society is supposed to be managed democratically and that social organizations are supposed to be non-hierarchical to prevent the concentration and abuse of power. So for an anarchist to give you a specific "plan" would be to reveal a great deal of hubris. The best we can really do in this regard is provide you with a few examples of communities or societies which were managed on anarchistic models, such [Spain in 1936](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y) where workers took over the factories and organized their 'government' under the [CNT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo#History) which operated on [federalist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#Federalism_as_the_Anarchist_Mode_of_Political_Organization) principles. To sum up the concept of federalism, anarchists want to maximize individual autonomy and run society democratically on a local level as much as possible. But for projects managed on a regional or "national" level, anarchists see it as useful for the smaller local organizations to form federations to make decisions at a larger level. >It all sounds that anarchism is mainly focused on "don't tell meeee what to do!!!" and "fuck off pigs!!!" then actually coming up with an efficient and better way to organize society. Ahh, the angsty teen stereotype of anarchists. I find them annoying too. But anarchists are interested in finding a better way to organize society, and our political philosophy adheres to the idea that power needs to be distributed and decentralized to ensure that social organizations have an incentive to benefit everyone and not merely those at the top. >Babies can't give consent, at what age are you allowed to leave your community? I don't think there's an easy answer to this question. People mature along a gradient and there may not be an entirely non-arbitrary way to make a cut-off between "competent adult" and "minor". My best swing at an answer would be to say that when a person shows a rational capacity and is able to understand the potential risks and benefits of leaving or making other decisions for that matter. >What if a society wants a hierarchy, sure you'll let them do it but eventually they will want to conquer you (as neo-imperialist societies do right ?). I'll put it this way. If some people decide to form a religious cult and follow a charismatic leader without question, then I have no interest in forcibly preventing them from doing so. Anarchism is about giving people better alternatives, not making everybody follow our great vision for society. As far as dealing with external threats is concerned, the answer would be for the federation of community organizations to organize an armed resistance to stop them. >How are you going to track down a serial killer if he can disappear into a whole new world basically? You're going to have to clarify here. Do you mean the serial killer can hop from one anarchist community to another? Kropotkin wrote about the judicial functions of Medieval village communities, guilds and fraternal societies in his work, [Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution). If analogous organizations were to form again at a local level, they would be able to investigate and disseminate information on dangerous individuals to one another. >It seems like they don't want to actually sit down and talk about how to do things, they just use that ideology so they can say government sucks without having to do anything. Funny. Typically anarchists are accused of wanting to sit down and talk about how to do things too much, usually in the context of worker co-ops where all the workers need to go to meetings to decide how to manage the organization. I go to a hacker space from time to time which is managed on an anarchist model and my email inbox is usually full of junk from people on the list talking about upcoming events/projects/logistics. It seems like you have been influenced by the angsty teen stereotype a bit too much. It's understandable. The most annoying people who call themselves anarchists have a way of attracting attention to themselves. >I know it's kinda to be expected when most believers in the ideology are high schoolers and college kids that read a book and now think they're the shit and try to evangelize online. Well, you got me. >But I'm sure there are worthwhile intellectuals (BESIDES CHOMSKY) that have believed in the idea, so I'm coming here to see if there are any responses to my criticism. I already mentioned Kropotkin and would recommend his book. I promise it's not too preachy. But you might find it a bit dry. He does a decent job of demonstrating the value of cooperation in nature and showing how this tendency manifests in human society, particularly when organized democratically. It also looks like [modern biological](http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/generosity-leads-to-evolutionary-success.html#.Uso0kLTDuaO) research corroborates his findings about the value of cooperation from an evolutionary perspective. I've also heard good things about [Bakunin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin) who predicted the tyranny of state socialism, [Proudhon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) whose criticisms of private property are influential among anarchists, and [Benjamin Tucker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) who is notable for his criticism of "the four monopolies" which he blamed for concentrating wealth at the expense of the working class. Among more modern thinkers, besides Chomsky, you might want to give [David Graeber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber) a look. He is an anthropologist who wrote an interesting work on [Debt](http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290), which explores the origins of money in the concept of debt. So anarchism is a serious political philosophy that is advocated by many intelligent people. It is true that we are angry about living in a world where powerful people are able to violate our concept of justice with impunity. But anarchism is about more than merely giving the finger to "the man." Most anarchists today are interested in finding ways to reduce and ultimately eliminate the oppression of marginalized people. This involves the criticism and elimination of power relations that drive oppression on the one hand, and the advocacy and establishment of egalitarian organizations to empower marginalized groups.### Human: You can write a lot, but riddle me this batman: who will run the nuclear facilities? They need a constant supply of cool running water for the next 10,000 years, and arguably most developed countries have at least one.### Assistant: Nuclear power only makes sense if the output of the energy is a large, monolithic regime that needs the power density. However, if your goal is to have society organize itself in dynamic, smaller-scale federations, it makes no sense to build any more plants, and it actually makes sense to scale back the amount standing on the planet. If you're going to decentralize power structures, and, thus, decentralize economies, why would you have large, centralized energy sources? Did you ever consider a world in which we don't **need** nuclear power plants?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: He asked you whether you'd ever considered a world in which we don't need nuclear power plants. Your answer isn't good enough. We actually don't need nuclear power plants now, in this reality. They're not magic. They arguably offer certain advantages, but nothing so dramatic that we couldn't easily manage without them. (Climate change may change that, but I feel like that's a little beside the point, as we're discussing an extreme hypothetical) As far as objections to anarchism go, this is just weak sauce. Also, villages and cities are definitely very natural, but the notion that mega-cities would exist without extremely powerful states managing them isn't obvious at all.

### Human: CMV: Saying the pledge of allegiance in US schools is weird.### Assistant: Schools serve two purposes when it comes to education. The first, and obvious, is to provide students with knowledge believed to be necessary for success in a given field or society. The second is to act as a system of moral education. The morals are determined by the entity which controls the school. In the case of public schools, said entity would be the government. In the case of Catholic schools, this would be the Church. Understanding this, it really isn't weird at all for the pledge to be said in school because the U.S. values loyalty to country. Many countries will create this in their own way. For example, during Meiji Japan, it became custom for students to bow before a portrait of the Emperor and listen to the principle read the Imperial Rescript every morning.### Human: Public schools have no business promoting the state itself as a moral authority. Education should be about teaching kids how to think and make decisions for themselves, not imposing a value system that holds the state on a different level than any other country or organization### Assistant: It is their business because the government runs the schools. If you want kids learning about something else, send them to a private school, but expect the private school to do the same, just with the morals they choose. If you want to avoid all of that, home school them, but be prepared when the parents decide to pass on their own morals as part of that education. School is about learning how to survive in the society the school exists within. It only makes sense that part of that survival is learning the morals of that society.### Human: Or perhaps the state schools shouldn't act as a propaganda wing for the government? This doesn't happen in every country...### Assistant: It does, those schools just focus on the morals each government wants. If a government requires a school teach students about all of the bad things the government has done in the past, do you not think that is exactly what the government wants the students to think? Just because the morals taught are critical of the government, it doesn't mean that they aren't teaching the children to think how they want them to. Governments can have very different goals in the morals they teach. The point is that they still are using the education system to raise the kinds of citizens they want. A student is Britain is not going to be taught to think using Japanese values, and a Japanese student isn't going to be taught to think using French values, and a French student isn't going to be taught to think using Brazilian values. They are being taught the way their government wants them to think. > [Propaganda](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda) - Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. Nothing in that definition requires propaganda to be in favor of the government. All it requires is that it educates people with the goal of convincing them of a specific political view. If you are being taught to be critical of the government because of all of the bad things it has done, it is still propaganda. It is arguably good propaganda (assuming it is true), but it is still propaganda. In the case of the pledge, it creates unity and patriotism. This is neither bad nor good, as that depends on other factors. As it is, the U.S. is going through its own ethical revision in which we are finally starting to open up old wounds so that we can sew them up right. It's all part of the shifting morals of the society, which means the government will soon follow by shifting the morals taught in schools.

### Human: CMV: Egg white (e.g. egg white omelette) only dishes are a complete waste and are not worth being included in one's diet### Assistant: While I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that egg yolks are not bad for you — and I no longer use only egg whites in my omelette — maybe the most important part of a healthy diet is your calorie intake to either lose or maintain weight. If your diet calls for high protein (to help feel fuller) and lower calories, the elimination of egg yolks in my morning 6-egg omelette is a difference of about 180 calories with very little loss of food volume. That seems minor, but for people on a diet, those extra calories can add up quickly. So, while you are right in all the ways egg yolks are beneficial, avoiding the yolk is a small way that people losing weight can help eat "more" while maintaining a strict calorie goal. It's a tool, but not the end all.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Well, OP's argument states they are a complete waste. I may be the minority, but my point stands. A lot of people who work out and diet eat a lot of eggs.### Human: Outside of the protein you are getting from the egg whites you are basically getting empty calories. Why not use those calories smarter by cutting the amount of eggs down and adding a couple yolks. Like you, I am currently working out 6 days a week while reducing my calorie intake so I can cut the fat I gained from the way too cold winters here in Colorado. I choose to eat 2 full eggs a day and get the necessary vitamins along with a great source of protein. I easily make up for the calories in other parts of my diet because I am actually getting something out of the calories from my eggs.### Assistant: I kind of agree and I don't eat egg whites only. I eat whole eggs. But I disagree with OP's point that egg whites are a "complete waste". Depending on the diet and goals and how you piece together what you eat every day, egg whites may be perfect. Also, you can't say aside from protein egg whites are empty calories, IMO. Because they provide protein, a macro that is, for a lot of people who lift weights, the most important macro, they are not empty calories at all. Also, since like 80% of an egg's protein is in the white, they provide a low-calorie protein boost, allowing you more calories to play with on other macros. It's about options when you are balancing a diet and counting macros.### Human: I was about to argue with you on your previous posts about how even though the egg whites might fill in meals with low calories, they are still no more than empty calories that ought to be done with something more nutritional for you, but this made me jump to the conclusion, that while not for me, egg whites might be needed for people who are dieting religiously specially when it comes to macros. ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/6-8_Yes_Size15. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/6-8_Yes_Size15)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: I think George W. Bush was a good president-CMV### Assistant: What policies of Bush do you feel make him a good president? I feel that getting us into costly and endless foreign wars, vast expansion of the federal government, outrageous deficit spending, and threatening civil liberties are all unacceptable.### Human: Almost sounds like Obama and almost every president we ever had.### Assistant: Except we're not comparing Bush to Obama, we're arguing whether or not Bush was a good president.### Human: We usually compare other people in the same position to determine if they were good in said position. What do we have to compare Bush to to see if he was a good president if we aren't using other presidents? Are we going to compare him to the queen of England, the pope, some random U.S. citizen, etc.? You have to have some standard to compare him to in order to determine if he was good.### Assistant: Comparisons aren't necessary here at all. The OP didn't ask if Bush was the worst or the best president, just good or not good. We should be looking at his policies and determining if they improved or were detrimental to the country. It doesn't matter where they stand in comparison to other's### Human: That depends what you're after. I see your point, but you could also argue that you can't know how good someone's done their job without taking into account how hard their job is in the first place. And this is maybe best done by comparing to others who have had the same office he had. A footballer is mediocre or great based solely on how good his peers are. I wouldn't say comparisons serve no purpose in determining his aptitude.

### Human: CMV: Political Propaganda is a form of advertising and as such should be held against FTC standards or even higher standards### Assistant: How would you distinguish propaganda from a "normal" editorial, or a "normal" political ad?### Human: Usually the distinction between propaganda and political ad is that a political Ad discloses very clearly that is an Ad, paid by a candidate/party. Propaganda is usually a form of advertising where they conceal the real intent of it (they are getting paid to persuade you into liking a political candidate/bill/whatever) but disguise it as an editorial, an article, a tweet, a facebook post, whatever. A normal editorial is just the opinion of an editor/journalist, without any monetary incentive behind. They are not getting paid to say the things they are saying.### Assistant: Do you have a specific example in mind? Usually I can tell when a source is biased. If you go to Breitbart or Mother Jones, you will expect them to parrot a particular party's talking points and criticize the other party. Would you say they should be required to put that they are paid to do so? It's kind of obvious.### Human: It might be obvious for you, in those obvious cases, but not in every single case for every single person in the world. It's not obvious all the time for all the people. Same with Ads, it might be obvious for you when an article is clearly trying to sell you a product, but not for everyone and not all the time. Now, it's not only about disclosing paid endorsements and influencers, it also about being responsible for making false-claims. A campaign can say whatever bullshit and it's OK, there are no consequences. A product cannot claim the most basic stuff just because they lack enough evidence.### Assistant: IDK about breitbart or mother jones in particular but I think you'll find that a large proportion of that propaganda isn't sponsored by political parties, it's just ideologues pushing their views. It seems like the line is so blurred that it would be impossible to enforce what you're proposing.

### Human: CMV: September 11th Should not involve or include tributes to troops, the military, etc.### Assistant: I didn't see much of the ceremonies so I'm not sure if this is relevant, but keep in mind that military involvement in a celebration does not mean that we are celebrating the military. The military is a representation of the country and a source of pride. Having jet flyovers or soldiers singing the national anthem at a football game doesn't mean we're celebrating the troops, rather their presence is meant to enhance the experience of the game. Similarly, a military presence at a 9/11 memorial could be more to enhance a solemn sense of awe and remind us of the nation-wide solitary which ensued.### Human: > Having jet flyovers or soldiers singing the national anthem at a football game Is that... a thing in America?### Assistant: Totally! It isn't THAT common (in my area) but they are flying once a week anyways so why not just put it on the day of celebration?### Human: Why are military jets flying around once a week. I'd be terrified if there were such a presence of the military where I live (Germany). **Edit:** I'd like to note that I only live in Germany, and was not brought up here. My passive paranoia is self-developed.### Assistant: Military jets fly **daily** for training. Lack of training hurts your abilities and skills. They generally don't fly over urban areas though so you won't see them often. And yes, in the US, that includes German Air Force aircraft. In fact, your air force has squadrons that train at Holloman Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Pensacola in the US and train here rather than in Germany### Human: Didn't they used to train out of Fort Bliss some too, for ground attack?### Assistant: I believe they condensed the operations at Ft. Bliss and Holloman AFB to a single base in the last couple of years, but I could be wrong

### Human: I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV.### Assistant: This seems much less like a class "war" and much more like class "domination," but I digress. I think you may be sensationalizing a bit. >The people who control money are seriously messed up and are waging a merciless and savage war on the people This implies that there is some cohesive organization between these people to maintain their own authority, and to hamper or harm everyone else. I think the truth is much more innocent/disturbing. Take your energy example, for instance. >I'd argue the reason why America doesn't have a strong public transportation system using high speed railways is that are incredibly efficient and safe and that they run off of (generally) electromagnetic and solar energy; not oil. This IS because of oil (well, also because you would need a much higher population density to make building that sort of public transportation worth building, but let's focus on oil). After WWII, America was THE top dog. We controlled almost half of the entire world's economic activity because of various factors (one of which was that our competitors had all been heavily damaged by the war). Because of our overwhelming control of the global market, oil was incredibly cheap. And on our domestic front, more and more cars were being bought. Highways had already been under construction since the 30's, mostly for military transportation purposes, but this interstate road construction was HUGELY subsidized during the '50's. These huge sprawling roads were the most efficient use of resources at the time AS LONG AS gasoline was cheap and readily available. Oil perhaps has a large pull, but it is largely because what we consider modern society was built on it. We've enabled ourselves to go without any real meaningful population-planning. We need a solution to the energy problem, but I don't think public transportation like high-speed rails really poses a threat to oil companies...cheap oil already kept the population spread out enough to make such public transportation (at least on a large scale) inefficient. I'm not willing to blame the 1% for that. If they stand in the way of progress to protect themselves from competition (which I'm sure they do to some degree) then they should be punished for it, but we must simultaneously avoid sour grapes. TL;DR we built our modern society around oil and now it is biting us in the rear.### Human: Agree and conceded. The rich don't directly use oil as a tool of oppression, but it has just developed that way due to the circumstances (and I think that the rich do recognize the power of oil of course). A much better way to put it that I did. ∆### Assistant: Furthermore, I don't think the urban sprawl could have been predicted to the extent it currently is. I also think people recognized oil was going to be a dominant energy source for awhile, but didn't realize it would be so dominant for this long. I liked where you were going with it though, and enjoyed reading your argument.### Human: > I don't think the urban sprawl could have been predicted to the extent it currently is. Malvina Reynolds wrote "Little Boxes" in 1962 so stale lifeless suburban sprawl was already recognized that early at least### Assistant: I was thinking a little earlier than that...think Standard Oil monopoly.

### Human: As an atheist born to generations of Jewish followers, I believe that you can't say I'm technically Jewish (anymore than an "Atheist Christian is technically still Christian) without using inherently religious beliefs in you argument. CMV.### Assistant: Judaism is more than just a religion. It is also a culture and kinda-sorta an ethnicity or two. If you insist on feeding everyone who walks in your door and tell people, "I'm cold; you should put on a sweater" then you are culturally Jewish even if you don't believe in god. If you're an Ashkenazi Jew, you're still genetically Ashkenazi even if you haven't set food in a shul in years. If you marry some other Eastern European Jew-turned-atheist you'd better still get the standard genetic testing done, because recessive genetic illnesses caused by generations of only marrying within the culture don't actually care what faith you profess.### Human: > If you insist on feeding everyone who walks in your door and tell people, "I'm cold; you should put on a sweater" then you are culturally Jewish even if you don't believe in god. I just learned I am jewish?### Assistant: Welcome! Your complementary menorah and membership card for the global conspiracy to control the media should arrive within two weeks.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: The Gregorian calendar should be scrapped and replaced with something more logical.### Assistant: > School and financial years are misaligned with calendar years. Why have the 2014-15 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar? School and financial years are also misaligned with each other; in fact, every US corporation is permitted to observe a different financial year for tax-paying purposes.### Human: Someone lives in the northern hemisphere! Down south we love our warm Christmas break, beach new years trips and school years that sync up with calander years. Move to Australia and you can have it all too!### Assistant: Also the seasons sync up with the months here. Summer starts on December 1.### Human: wait the seasons dont sync to the months in the northern hemi? also this makes me ask does a particular hemisphere experience the temperature changes more. i,e its more likely to snow in the north than in the southern hemi?### Assistant: SPRING EQUINOX March 20, 6:45 P.M. EDT SUMMER SOLSTICE June 21, 12:38 P.M. EDT FALL EQUINOX September 23, 4:21 A.M. EDT WINTER SOLSTICE December 21, 11:48 P.M. EST Welcome to the Northern Hemisphere### Human: How can the seasons start at different times in the Northern and Southern hemispheres? That makes no sense. If it's the start of summer in the Northern hemisphere, it should be the start of winter in the Southern hemisphere.### Assistant: Yeah I'm thinking the same thing...### Human: Seasons have no legal definition.### Assistant: They have a meteorological one.### Human: Astronomical, you mean.### Assistant: I guess. I mean, as it's being discussed, the factors taken into account can vary and thus it could be consideres meteorological as well in function of the weather and other non exclusively astronomical factors as well.### Human: Yeah, but in the context of *this thread* of this post we were talking about solstices and equinoxes. To me that means we're talking about the astronomical definitions for seasons instead of those based on meteorology or climatology. Since the latter two vary from region to region (with equatorial and arctic regions often only having two distinct meteorologic or climatology seasons) if we're looking at making a calendar of planetary seasons, the equinoxes and solstices make the most sense as the dates of consequence. In the US, I think we don't use meteorology or climatology to determine seasons on a national level because our country is too big. If winter begins the first day that it's below, say, 40 F (5 C) the entire day, then it's winter where I live in Michigan beginning in late October, but it would never be winter in Texas, California, Arizona, or Florida. Do we go by the amount of sunlight? Well, today in Chicago the sun came up at 7:16 am and will set at 4:24 pm. In Phoenix, it rises at 7:30 am and sets at 5:26 pm. That's nearly an extra hour of sunlight. If the US as a nation wants to talk about seasons as a nation, we *have* to use something more precise than the weather or amount of sun.### Assistant: I see your point, you are right. One little thing, you wrote "astrological" instead of "astronomical".### Human: Yeah, fixed. Stupid auto correct.

### Human: CMV: I feel Democratic politicians make empty promises to voters and just blame Republicans when things don't work out.### Assistant: >I feel politicians should do the same and that the Democrats should stop using Republican's at scapegoats for their failed actions. I don't know if you were aware but the Republicans in Congress have made it their mission since 2010 to block anything and everything they could. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-gop-pledge-to-block-dems-legislation/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html [ROBERT DRAPER: So they decided that they needed to begin to fight Obama on everything. This meant unyielding opposition to every one of the Obama administration’s legislative initiatives.](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/inside-obamas-presidency/transcript-36/) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/the_incentive_behind_gop_obstr032969.php http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/01/senate-republicans-vow-block-dem-legislation-tax-cuts-budget-pass/ Republicans are not interested in running the country. Many of them, Tea Party or not, are in the business of minimizing government and rendering it impotent at all costs. When people say that all the problems with Congress are a result of the Republicans they are goddamn right. Take also for example the issue of raising the debt ceiling in 2011 and again in 2013. Neither of these were the result of policy issues, such as the issue in 1995, they were instead the direct result of Republicans holding the government hostage. Until the Republicans can return to the debate on good faith with the people they disagree with, I don't see how your current view is justified. EDIT: I totally forgot the wasted time, money, and effort on re-voting and re-voting and re-voting to repeal the ACA, despite knowing full well that it wouldn't succeed every time.### Human: The whole point of the U.S. government system is to make sure no one person or group has total power over everybody. It makes a lot of sense for the Republicans to be completely against the Democrats because it limits the power Democrats have, and vice versa. The gridlock that happens because of this makes it a lot harder for legislation to get passed, which is a good thing because it limits the power of the government. If Democrats just passed whatever they wanted, a lot of people would be happy but a *lot* of people would be angry. The same would happen if Republicans got to pass whatever they wanted. Having the current system ensures that we meet somewhere in the middle, where both conservatives and liberals have a chance of getting what they want. If you want a system where one party has power over everyone, go to China.### Assistant: >It makes a lot of sense for the Republicans to be completely against the Democrats because it limits the power Democrats have, and vice versa. No, it really doesn't. It's one thing to have an ideological agenda that runs counter to the party that is part of the current majority. It's quite another to literally obstruct everything. Democrats have repeatedly offered to compromise in a number of areas, and all you ever hear from Republicans is "Democrats refuse to compromise with us". It's kind of a PR war at this point, really. We have a Congress that has filibustered more bills than at any other time in history. As a result, the current Congress has passed fewer laws than any other Congress in modern history. When your party is not the one in power, you can still debate. You can still seek compromises. But when you refuse to do literally either of those things, you have a dysfunctional Congress. And to suggest that there is somehow equal blame here, well that's just patently wrong.### Human: >It's one thing to have an ideological agenda that runs counter to the party that is part of the current majority. It's quite another to literally obstruct everything. Why? If the Republican ideology is anti-Democrat, then why would they ever side with Democrats? >...the current Congress has passed fewer laws than any other Congress in modern history. That's exactly what a lot of people want.### Assistant: >Why? If the Republican ideology is anti-Democrat, then why would they ever side with Democrats? The word you're looking for is "compromise". And the reason they would do it is because that's how you pass laws to keep the country running. When you have a party that is literally willing to shut the government down to get their way, that's brinkmanship, and it doesn't do this country any favors. It is a dysfunctional Congress when that happens. Go back 50 years. Sure, you might see a flat out refusal here and there. But there was at least a general agreement that we'd "keep the doors open", so to speak. And when something came up for debate, that's what we did - we debated it. And compromises were at least within the spectrum of possibilities. I feel like you're ignoring historical context here.### Human: Republicans aren't the only ones who disrupt congress. Look at Wisconsin. When Scott Walker was trying to pass his bill regarding unions, 14 democrats fled to Illinois in an attempt to boycott and delay the signing of the bill. Politics is a double edged sword, where one side tries to feed the public why the opposition is the evils of all evils while at the same time they do stupid crap themselves. They're both ridiculous

### Human: CMV:That assisted suicide should not be frowned upon, but rather more supportive in helping one's choice.### Assistant: Speaking as someone who suffered from severe depression and anxiety - you really aren't in your right mind when you are depressed. You aren't thinking clearly and you don't see all the possible options. I desperately wanted to die and now I'm quite content in my life. It took years to get to this point, but I feel like a completely different person. And I think that's the point. People who are depressed are not mentally sound, they are not themselves, and they should not be allowed to make any big decisions - the biggest possible decision being taking their own life. If they do take their own life, I don't think they should be judged harshly for it, but it certainly shouldn't be a course of action we as a society endorse (in most cases - I think cases of terminal illness are an exception).### Human: Thank you for sharing this. However do you agree that there is a difference between someone who is temporarily depressed, clearly in need of help, in the way you describe.. and the person who is not depressed, but in all seriousness has considered the various aspects of such a decision and wants to end their life? I believe we can respect and help both these situations as a society. Not sure how we can distinguish between the two...### Assistant: Well, you'll notice that I did provide for an exception in the case of individuals suffering from terminal illness. I think it makes sense to allow them a more dignified death by choosing when on their own terms rather than just waiting to get to the point where they can't function. The problem is that I can't see any other circumstance where someone who isn't mentally ill would want to kill themselves. Sure, there might be people who don't consider themselves mentally ill who want to kill themselves and who think they've considered all the options, but I have a lot of trouble believing that such people aren't mentally ill. I know the phrase has been used a lot and it irritates me a bit, but suicide really is a permanent solution to a temporary problem in the vast majority of cases. If you read some of the stories of people who survived jumping of the Golden Gate Bridge, nearly all of them regretted their decision the moment they jumped. tl;dr Barring terminal illness, I can think of no logical, rational, or sane reason for someone to want to kill themselves.### Human: ok how about this, you tell me if i'm mentally ill or not. i live in a wealthy country, have a fulfilling life, with wonderful people around me. i have had brief episodes of depression, under 2 weeks, no self-harming history. i don't want to become anyone's responsibility or burden, and i also want to preserve my dignity as a human being. i don't see how that is compatible with being old and incapacitated. i would like to be able to make the decision of ending my life when i see fit. when i see that i have no more contributions to society and/or no autonomy. that may happen when i'm 65 or may happen tomorrow due to some accident.### Assistant: Is this theoretical? No one wants to be a burden or a drain on society...but the thing is, you just think you are a burden. You aren't actually a burden. If you have people who care about you, then they won't mind taking care of you. In fact, they'll want to. Additionally, you equate being old with being incapacitated, which isn't necessarily true. BUT, it is quite possible that as you age you find yourself with a terminal illness or something which is exactly the exception I mentioned.### Human: ok if we can agree in some cases age resembles a terminal illness then, then we're on the same page. it wasn't theoretical. i'm very serious about it. i plan to make sure i'll have the means to end my life when i no longer feel i contribute in a meaningful way. also think of the inuit..

### Human: I do not think it is sexist or chauvinistic of me to expect my wife to handle the housework as long as I am the only one with a job. CMV### Assistant: So long as both people are happy, whatever setup works within your relationship is perfectly fine. It only becomes a problem if your wife doesn't want it this way but feels pressured into it, or if you assert your expectations on how things should be setup onto other people's relationships.### Human: If she doesn't like home-making she needs to get a job not just abandon doing anything productive.### Assistant: Exactly. I'm a student but my wife works. When I had winter break and she was still working, it was of course my job to take care of the house. It's not about gender, it's about both spouses doing their part.### Human: I agree that it's not a gender thing. I think a big problem with housekeeping comes when people are on different ends of the messy/clean spectrum, and therefore expectations are different. If you and your wife are pretty much comfortable with the same level of cleanliness then the situation works. In my situation, my husband is definitely in the messy red zone while I am not. Not putting his dirty socks on the floor is his idea of contributing to housework. If I didn't live with him he probably wouldn't own a vacuum. So, in OP's domestic situation we don't really know what OP's expectations are of his wife, and if she really cares if the laundry is done and or there is a pile of dirty dishes in the sink. If that's the case then they need to talk about their living arrangement and make some compromises. We don't know why she isn't working. Is she a student? Writing a novel? Disabled? Unable to find work? She might be otherwise engaged with her time as well.### Assistant: Yeah, I've never really figured out what is best in that situation. For someone who doesn't care about having a spotless house, it seems unfair that they would have to help keep the house spotless, just because his/her spouse has to have things be that way. Besides, the person who likes a clean house isn't doing it for the other person. They are doing it for themselves. The other person doesn't care. So any help given by the (insert nice word for slob here) is really pretty much a gift for the cleaner spouse. But the cleaner spouse wouldn't see things that way, because it isnt how they look at things. Its weird### Human: They're probably doing it for the house. If you don't keep a house clean, everything gets really grimy and really dirty real quick. Over a long period of time? It gets disgusting. So they're probably doing it out of a sense of duty, which sense of duty the other persons might not even feel.### Assistant: >They're probably doing it for the house. The house doesn't care, and dirt isn't going to damage it. They are doing it for themselves.

### Human: I do not think it's transphobic to refuse to date a trans person. CMV### Assistant: How do you expect your own sexual views changed? That's like a gay person asking "I don't like women, CMV?" However I do have one contention, let's assume there is an attractice trans women out there that you're attracted to. This may NEVER happen. This is unlikely. However, if that happens that when your view will change, not here on reddit.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's a much less controversial reason right there. Out of curiosity, what do you think of adoption? Is it important that your wife birth the children herself?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: At this point I think I'm just asking out of personal curiosity, so feel free to ignore me. What would you think of a surrogate? Would it have to be both your baby and your wife's?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Thanks for your time. Reading about your views has been interesting, and I enjoyed the discussion caused by your post.### Human: Your cordiality got me a little warm and tingly.

### Human: CMV: our political system doesnt serve us half as well as it could, and it needs a fundamental overhaul.### Assistant: From ww2 to now there has been a huge increase in the size and function of government. The government fails us not because of the canidates we have or the way it functions, but because government cannot ever truly live up to the expectations placed upon it by a population. No increase in the size or function of government will ever see a correlated causation increase in the general welfare of the population equal to the increase in function. This election is a perfect example why we should all be in favor of a limited Government.### Human: Is this intended to be a counterargument to OP's post? If it is, could you clarify how you disagree with OP?### Assistant: His original argument is our government isn't serving us half as well as it could. My argument was meant to convey how our government is serving us pretty much exactly as well as it can, within reason, it is his expectation of government which is faulty. Edit: My argument was this radical new way of governmence should be a limited government focused on states rights. The opposite of the way we have been heading for the past century.### Human: The commentary that government could be better if more limited was simply personal commentary?### Assistant: The government wouldn't be "better" it would be less. Citizens would be serving citizens in places where mutually beneficial.

### Human: CMV: I think it's OK for politicians to change their public stance on issues.### Assistant: I think its okay, its perfect in my mind. The ability to change an opinion based on new information is something all people should do. The issue is when people flip flop in order to get votes. Before election, "I will lower taxes!" after election "Taxes are going up" Or when they say in 2009 that Iraq was a good idea, and in 2016 they claim it was never their idea. Changing an opinion is okay, but doing so to cater to votes is wrong### Human: Here's my counterpoint: Politicians are bad. People that are willing to play the political game are bad for the country because they are not always trying to govern to the best of their ability and are instead looking to leverage power. So a politician is going to change their stance to whatever they think is most likely to keep them in power. So if someone who was elected or is running for office changed their view it's very difficult to know whether they are a politician or genuinely changed their mind. In that sense I think it's better to vote for people that have not made populist changes to their positions because then they are more likely to actually have the country's best interests in mind.### Assistant: like i said, i think its human nature to change your stance when facts and new information is presented. But we end up having. 2010 against abortion 2012 in favor 2015 against its often not even about facts, but the parties stance### Human: > I think its okay, its perfect in my mind. I think it's bad even when it's not pandering because it's not possible to know when it IS or ISN'T pandering. So even if they don't flip-flop, even if they seem sincere. I still think it's a bad idea to vote for candidates that change their mind in populist ways because there's such a high likelihood that you're just voting for a good actor. Although the party stance is an interesting point. I don't like voting for candidates who toe the party line either which is ironic because I'd actually prefer a representative parliamentary system.### Assistant: > I think it's bad even when it's not pandering so once you have a view you are 100% stuck with it? we used to think the earth was flat, once we discovered it was round. Would you expect the then politicians to stick to the flat theory?### Human: I would want us to elect new candidates who did not believe that. There are a lot of potential candidates to choose from and I think having politicians in power is so destructive that it is worth having an entirely new crop of legislators if that's what it takes. Because really no opinion is so unpopular that NO ONE believes it.### Assistant: but once facts come out, why could people not change their opinion? its almost as if you choose to ignore logic, and the first thing someone says becomes their lifelong opinion### Human: I absolutely believe they should change their opinion. But I also think it should disqualify them from further holding public office. Holding public office is not a small thing, and I think we can disqualify all of those people and still have a lot of good candidates. And maybe if we disqualified people that changed their mind in this way, then candidates would be less likely to talk in such absolutes.### Assistant: but thats literally punishing people for becoming educated... that seems very very very coutner productive. I rather they come out and say they cahnged their opinion because of A and B### Human: > but thats literally punishing people for becoming educated... I actually don't agree. I think it's punishing them for being wrong in the first place. If they keep their outdated opinion then they won't get re-elected. If they change their outdated opinion they won't get re-elected. If they never had that outdated opinion then they will get re-elected. It's not punishing them for becoming educated because the outcome doesn't change when they become educated.### Assistant: > I think it's punishing them for being wrong in the first place but all of us change our opinions when new information comes out. For example take a look at global warming, i much rather have the people against it learn and change about it. RAther than say, well let them be, new generations will be okay. I mean the whole point of this SUB is to change peoples views.. based on information. Why cant politicians do this### Human: > Why cant politicians do this There's a saying "The only people fit to rule are those who don't seek it". I think there's a corollary to that "The people that seek power the most are the least fit for the job." Those people will say literally anything if it will get them into power. And since they are the worst possible people to have in power I think it's worth potentially throwing out good candidates if it means we can keep out those candidates. So in a democracy it is good for voters to gather information and change their minds based on that information. But part of that process is to elect new governors, not re-elect the same ones who coincidentally(?) continue to share the same opinion as them.

### Human: CMV: I think the popularization of the term "Street Harassment" and the current discussion around cat-calling may be destructive### Assistant: I have to admit I have been finding the discussions on street harassment entirely bizarre and bewildering - not for the reasons you describe, but simply because I have never experienced street harassment of the scale these women describe. Tbc, it's not that I have never experienced street harassment (I have), but at least in the cities and countries I have lived in, it is not a daily occurrence. In fact, it is that rare, I don't even remember the last time I was harassed in the street! I don't remember the last time a friend complained to me about being harassed in the street! Far from happening multiple times an hour, I can go for months or even years without experiencing a single instance of street harassment. Yet, miraculously, people over here still manage to date. Which is a way of saying, you seem to be conflating two drastically different things here: telling men not to harass random women on the street is not the same as telling men not to speak to women at all. This means that if you're not harassing women in the street, then you're ok! Frustrated celibacy is not going to be a problem for you! In fact, you are not really relevant to the discussion at all: you are not a victim of harassment and you are not a perpetrator. This is not about you, which, surely, is a good thing, right? > I honestly don't understand what the expected outcome is. I think you might want to give a bit more thought to this. Because the thing is, men who harass women in the street (or anywhere else) are not looking for dates. They are not socially awkward but lovable goofs who can't come up with a better way to approach that girl they like. What they are looking for is dominance: they are intentionally trying to humiliate and discomfort. They are intending exactly what they achieve: to disrupt another person's day and force them to pay attention to them by intimidating them. They pick women because they have digested the message that women owe them sexual attention - and therefore they claim it. The take away here from you is that they are nothing like you. The very fact that you are trying - and failing - to understand their behaviour by forcing it into the patterns of your own life (i.e. problems regarding how to get to know women) exactly highlights how far apart you are from these men. As a result, you might have better luck understanding the discussion and assuaging the concerns it raises for you if you appreciate that this is not really relatable to anything you have experienced.### Human: The problem is that the feminist message is directed at all men and doesn't attempt to define what harrassment is. Harrassment is something subjective, "I didn't feel good near him", "he was staring", rather than describing constructive adult ways to deal with the situation. After all, anybody can be a victim once you get into the mindset. I would say that a man who reads feminist blogs probably has above average sensitivity to woman's experience. The message he receives is that woman's world is full of rape and catcalling and that he, as a man, should refrain from approaching women and even looking at them, lest he be labeled ogling creep himself. What about the person who receives his social models from pornography then? Women are willing to do things for him if he only becomes the manly stud - that's the message he gets - and consequently sends a picture of his penis to some woman. This fuels the feminist engine.### Assistant: > The message he receives is that woman's world is full of rape and catcalling and that he, as a man, should refrain from approaching women and even looking at them The message sent out is that he should refrain from raping and catcalling. If he twists it into something else that's not the fault of feminism. > Harrassment is something subjective, "I didn't feel good near him", "he was staring" The videos currently circling online are not of men staring. > What about the person who receives his social models from pornography then? Yep. That person is going to have problems.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO, 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=DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lkhe4/cmv_i_think_the_popularization_of_the_term_street/clvwy2p\))### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO, 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=DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lkhe4/cmv_i_think_the_popularization_of_the_term_street/clw24jn\))

### Human: CMV: I don't think the Boston marathon bombing was that big of deal### Assistant: It's important to avoid trying to assign "winners" to tragedy. Measuring the Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust to the Belgian Mandate in the Congo is a fruitless, nonsensical argument. As is trying to compare famines in Ethiopia after the Communist take over to those in China before its Communist take over. As is comparing the Boston Marathon to other cases of mass murder. It's devastating to some people because they were directly effected, because the subject matter was something they care about, or because it's something they've founded part of their identity upon. These are the things that cause events to linger, it's not that people died but rather that the people who lived are different for it. Don't get me wrong, the Boston Marathon Bombing is much smaller than a lot of other events. It's a big deal because people from Boston care and make it a big deal. That's all there needs to be to it.### Human: > mass murder. Thats the problem. Calling this mass murder in a 3rd world country would instantly be recognized as false. The problem is that peoples opinions are warped when you have a ameri-centric view of the world, and it stops people from having a global conscience ad caring about all tragedies equally. I guarantee that many, many Americans consider the boston bombings was worse than a car-bombing in Afghanistan which kills 6 (twice as many) people.### Assistant: This mindset has never really made sense to me. Person A has something bad happen to them. Person B has something worse happen to them. Person A is not allowed to feel bad about his situation because person B has it worse. This doesn't make sense. No one is trying to one-up the holocaust with the boston marathon bombing. But that doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to be upset by it.### Human: The things people care about are the things that have resources put towards fixing them. Just as many people care about Person A as they do about Person B, Person B might die on the way to the hospital. But even worse, as a global analogy, a lot of times Person B has less resources at their disposal than Person A because hundreds of millions more people care about Person A on account of their skewed priorities.### Assistant: So, what you are saying is that we shouldnt care about person A and should only focus on person B? Why not both? personally, i worry more about person A becuase what happened to person A is much more likely to happen to me than what happened to person b. I still do what i can (through donations of time and money) to help person b. But the issues that person a is dealing with are much scarier and more real to me than the issues of person b. if someone was breaking into apartments and raping people in my complex, and someone was stealing food from starving people in africa, my first responsibility is to protect my wife and family. in that moment, i could care less about starving families, i want to make sure my wife doesnt get raped. does a few people getting raped really stack up to families dying of starvation? no. am i still going to make a big deal out of the people near me being raped? absolutely. Ideally, yes, everyone would seek to help those who are the least fortunate. but someone else having it bad does not invalidate my having it slightly less bad.### Human: > So, what you are saying is that we shouldnt care about person A and should only focus on person B? Why not both? It was very clear that I wasnt saying that. I was saying if you only have one ambulance you should give it to Person B and let Person A drive to the ER or make an appointment. I'm using metaphors to explain the situation and I feel like you're not really getting it. Person A is 3 dead in Boston Bombing and 6 dead in an Afghanistan Bombing. I'm talking about society as a whole and they way we use our resources. It's decided by what/who we care about eg afghanistanis or americans. > if someone was breaking into apartments and raping people its a lot easier for you to stop someone raping your wife than it is to solve world hunger### Assistant: No, i understand your analogies. I just don't really think they are practical. If person A has a broken arm and person B has had his arm cut off at the elbow, yes, person person B needs the abulance. We are in agreement that society should be trying to help the least fortunate. But that wasn't what my initial post was about. There are simply things that I cannot effect. People dying of starvation in africa is one of those. It also doesn't effect me. I am not in fear of starving anytime soon. I do what is reasonable with my influence and power (mostly money), but that's about it. The issues that are really a big deal for me are the things that can effect me. Unless you are talking about a global society, I don't think that just the US should be more worried about middle eastern starvation than american starvation. You are talking about resources, I am talking about how much people are effected by it. Yes, we should be trying to help starving families in africa. no that is not a bigger deal to me than my family going without a meal. I guess a good saying might be, "sometimes its not the biggest dog that you have to fight first, just the closest one."

### Human: I believe man and women can't be friends without sexual interest. CMV.### Assistant: I'm really interested in why you think this. I'm know it's anecdotal, but I (as a man) really don't have a sexual interest in most women I interact with, even if I consider them my friend. I can just find them emotionally or intellectually stimulating, just like I do with my guy-friends. What I find really interesting is this: > This even counts for gays, a lot of gay guys if you ask them will still have sex with most of their female friends to "See what it's like" Because it sounds similar to saying that two men can't be friends without sexual interest. Even straight guys, since they would just like to know "what it's like."### Human: there are a few details I would like to know so I can answer as good as I can, if you want to be sure of a response(Because I can't really handle all the reply's) Send me a private message and I will look into it deeper. 1. A few comments back I red something about A-sexual, would this apply to you? 2. Would they have sex with you under the right circumstances (Certainty of not losing what they already have)### Assistant: 1. No, definitely not. I both want and have sex. I couldn't imagine a romantic relationship with no sex at all. 2. I can't know for sure, but I don't think they do. Maybe one, maybe two but that still leaves a sizable number who wouldn't do it.### Human: Could you tell me what your relationship with these girls is based upon?### Assistant: Some of them are based on mutual interests, others on a different style of humor, others on shared experiences. They're mostly based on intellectual and emotional aspects, just like the friendships I have with guys.

### Human: CMV: I never want to die.### Assistant: Death is the natural state of living things. You probably think of death as a fall from normalcy, but I think of death *as* the normalcy. It is where all living, and nonliving, things spend a vast majority of their time. Life is like a fish jumping out of water; it's a burst of activity followed by a return to the ground state. Even if humans become much more technologically advanced and 'defeat' mortality as we know it, we will never overcome tragic accidents, acts of nature and human influence, or the eventual heat death of the universe. These things refute the tempting idea that we may eventually overcome death. We may live longer lives. We may even live for millennia and witness the birth and death of entire solar systems. But that will only make our inevitable return that much more jarring. It's better, I think, to make an effort to understand and accept death, to whatever extent humans are capable, than it is to anxiously cling to every possible second. The greatest gift humans have is the ability to overcome the fear of death. It's what separates us from all other organisms on Earth and it defines our ambitions, our struggles, and our strengths. Some of us are willing to die rather than submit; we'd die on our feet, doing what we love, rather than live on our knees. We are utterly unique in this respect. Every other animal will do whatever it takes to survive or to prolong the survival of the species. They are slaves to their genes. By accepting death, we have beaten the game of life, regardless of how we spend our time on Earth. So don't live in fear of death and don't let your animal instincts be your master. Life is more beautiful that way.### Human: >or the eventual heat death of the universe [Isaac Asimov might disagree with you there =D](http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)### Assistant: Well, heat death and entropy are some of the most basic and unavoidable ideas we have. Even if we can find other universes, we'd still be depleting them. Unless there are infinite universes.### Human: I think there is still some criticism towards heat death and the entropy of the universe.### Assistant: Heat death as the end of the universe: yeah, it's not that agreed upon. But who disagrees with entropy?### Human: Its not so much "entropy doesn't exist," as it is "we hardly know anything about most of the energy the universe is made up of, presuming anything about the entropy of the universe is subject to plenty of scrutinization." That is at least how it was explained to me.### Assistant: Well that makes sense. Kinda like dark mater and dark energy?### Human: That would be exactly it mate.

### Human: CMV: A dedicated, philanthropic 1%er could become a Santa-figure.### Assistant: I think what you're proposing is possible, though it would be very logistically difficult. My contention is that it wouldn't be a worthwhile charitable pursuit. This scheme would cost lots of money that could do more good invested into other areas. The heart of this scheme would be mass production and mass distribution. But why toys? Why not mass production of distribution of vaccines, anti-malarials, or clean water to children in need? Why not an investment in education at home or abroad? Why not a charitable initiative to fund research into clean technology to provide a better future for our children? If the goal of said philanthropist is to use their money to maximize the wellbeing of children, the mass distribution of presents on Christmas would be really inefficient at doing that.### Human: You're describing the Gates Foundation. Toys are nice, but improving the length and quality of life of those in less fortunate areas is relatively low hanging fruit.### Assistant: Pretty much. I think Gates has an effective strategy for philanthropy.### Human: It doesn't feel flashy to us, but it is far more effective than we could appreciate.### Assistant: Which is what I think philanthropy should be. A well-reasoned use of money to solve underlying and difficult socio-economic problems without being an overt personal vanity project.

### Human: CMV: A person's citizenship should never be revoked, even if they travel to war zones like Syria.### Assistant: So I think the travel thing is a weak case for revoking citizenship, but that there is one case that's plausible: fraud in the naturalization process. When someone applies to become a citizen through the immigration and naturalization process, they need to meet a bunch of criteria. If someone engages in fraud during that process and obtains citizenship they would have otherwise been denied, it would be appropriate to strip that citizenship from them after being convicted of the fraud.### Human: This is an interesting point actually. I have some experience with this process and I think there are far more restrictions towards becoming naturalized that would make this such a rare event that you wouldn't need a broad sweeping rule to prevent it. Not saying this doesn't happen but requirements just to get a green card is very high and to get citizenship it takes at a minimum 5 years (I believe). On such a long timeline and with such personal investigation by immigration it seems like if that person were here to create problems they would do so far before citizenship is gained.### Assistant: I'm not saying it's common, but [it does happen](http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/idaho-womans-us-citizenship-revoked-committing-naturalization-fraud). The rule in the US is also not broad or sweeping. It specifically says you need to have engaged in fraud directly relating to your becoming a citizen. **Edit** Here is the specific rule in the US, 8 USC 1451(e): >When a person shall be convicted under [section 1425 of title 18](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1425) of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled. Jurisdiction is conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication.### Human: Interesting case ... I could be wrong about this particular case but even after getting past many of the hurdles of immigration you are still investigated to be sure you're in a legitimate marriage for example even beyond the point where you're granted certain licenses. I know this is the case for a green card. You're right this is a good example of potential good cause but if, in her instance, she was still technically on a probationary status it would be business as usual for immigration procedure.### Assistant: I think you're wrong about this particular case (and comparable cases). By the time you get to citizenship from a green card, all the investigations and probationary periods and what not are done. If you obtained citizenship, you got through all those investigations. It is possible to still get caught E.g., they find a sham marriage broker and check their bank accounts, finding from 7 years back a 5k wire transfer from you, and a 3k transfer to your "spouse." Of course, managing to trick the system for all those investigations is also not common, but in any sufficiently large system, it'll happen.

### Human: CMV: If protesters form a human blockade stopping you from getting to work or class or something else important, you should legally be able to physically push them out of your way by any means necessary.### Assistant: > You can protest however you want What is an appropriate protest?### Human: Not infringing on other peoples rights.### Assistant: How is preventing easy travel down one particular route infringing your right?### Human: Pretty sure getting stuck in highway gridlock because protesters are illegally blocking the road is pretty infringing.### Assistant: What about highway gridlock because of an accident? Or because someone isn't paying attention and hasn't moved their car. Should you be allowed to assault people then?

### Human: CMV: Civil asset forfeiture should be abolished.### Assistant: Note that at around 4:33 Oliver casually points out that "civil forfeiture laws have had *some* positive effects" before referencing [this Washington Post article, "Stop and Seize."](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/) Now, this article, like Oliver's report, stresses the negative elements of civil forfeiture, and the way the law is being abused. But he seriously undervalues why they exist in the first place, and the context into which they were implemented. Crippling transnational drug organizations and restoring billions of dollars to victims are not marginal positive effects. They represent ways for the State to legitimately exercise it's power to eliminate serious threats to society and to make restitution to victims. Check out [this 1996 letter to the NYTimes](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/05/opinion/l-why-prosecutors-choose-civil-forfeiture-063487.html) from the chief of the Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section of the DOJ. He gives several more significant (and presumably unique) benefits to these laws, all of which seem sufficient to have the law in place, *at least in principle*. Now, I totally get that a law in principle and a law in practice can be totally different. Clearly the incentives for police are totally fucked up when they have little to no accountability or oversight on what they seize, and the money taken goes directly to them. However, these are problems with the *function* of civil forfeiture, not the *purpose* of it, and they seem reasonably resolvable. For starters, strong public outcry on these issues could and should lead to more public awareness and the necessary political capital to establish or empower oversight committees to check police incentives, even if the police themselves don't like it (think the empowering of Internal Affairs Bureau's in the late 60's and 70's to combat rampant police corruption in Chicago and NYC, and similar efforts in LA in the late 90's. And secondly, and perhaps most easily, states should change where the funds seized from civil forfeiture go. Instead of going straight to the police (and their margarita machines), they should be used by state-level or municipal governments (run by non-police civilians) by depositing in in the state treasury. This means that individual police officers can't just take money from civilians and then decide **themselves** where to spend it. This isn't just an abstract idea, either. I'm from Vermont, where [our laws on civil asset forfeiture](http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-vermont) function essentially like this, and money seized is usually used to fund education. I'm reasonably sure North Dakota and Maine do the same thing. Citizens of states where the law is being clearly perverted to serve law enforcement personal interests could and should campaign to implement more sensible forms of the law.### Human: Re: the letter to the editor you linked, I think the examples in there aren't very accurate. The police can seize and hold assets under criminal forfeiture once charges are filed. If someone remains a fugitive from justice overseas, the assets can still be held as long as the indictment remains open. So the example of the drug smuggling plane is wrong. It's correct that the government would not be able to dispose of the asset. But it wouldn't be going back into criminal hands. In the case of cash in the possession of a courier, they could totally seize it. They'd have to prove the person was a courier and that the cash was being used for an unlawful transaction. *But they should have to prove that.* In the case of a crack house knowingly let be used that way by an owner: that's also a crime you can charge the owner with. It's a hard crime to prove (not the least because I think the example is wildly implausible), but if you can prove it, you can take the house. I don't see a case made that criminal forfeiture can't take the money out of criminal hands - just that it makes it harder for the cops to sell the assets and use the money quickly. Which I could care less about: civil rights trump. As to states changing where the seized funds go, I support that. Reform is better than not reform. But unless federal law also changes, it won't do much good. Under what's called the "equitable sharing program" state officers can turn over an investigation to the feds, have the feds pursue forfeiture, and then keep up to 80% of the money for the local police department - *even if state law requires forfeited funds not go to local police.* [Here's](http://www.fbi.gov/indianapolis/press-releases/2010/ip112210.htm) an FBI press release about a check being given to an Indiana police department as part of a forfeiture. Left out of the release is the fact that Indiana's constitution requires forfeiture funds be turned over to the treasury for use in education, which those funds won't be, because of the equitable sharing program. I support changes to make civil forfeiture ~~go away~~ less problematic, but I still don't see why we should be using any lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the full panoply of rights guaranteed in criminal procedure. edit: I had a wonky sentence there### Assistant: >In the case of cash in the possession of a courier, they could totally seize it. They'd have to prove the person was a courier and that the cash was being used for an unlawful transaction. *But they should have to prove that.* This alone is why I don't agree with your view. The problem is not that it exists *at all*. The problem is that it exists with little safeguards that the assets are properly seized. It should *at least* place the burden of proof on law enforcement to show the seizure is warranted. If they want to seize assets it should be up to them to initiate the court processing to keep the assets, not to let them seize it and leave it up to the owner to initiate proceedings to get it back. I think beyond a reasonable doubt is a bit too difficult seeing as it's a civil matter and a preponderance the evidence is too easy seeing as it's arguably a criminal matter; clear and convincing evidence seems an appropriate standard to me. Worried the assets will disappear if it's not immediately seized? Fine, you can seize it but you have initiate court proceedings within a month to keep it. Failure to do so means you must return the assets. That doesn't avoid the issue of the owner having to spend potentially more money on an attorney than the value of the assets seized so if law enforcement loses their bid to keep the assets, they're also liable for the attorney's fees. In most cases, this should be sufficient to keep them from seizing property just because they want the money but still allow them to seize property from actual criminals.### Human: >I think beyond a reasonable doubt is a bit too difficult seeing as it's a civil matter and a preponderance the evidence is too easy seeing as it's arguably a criminal matter; clear and convincing evidence seems an appropriate standard to me. I see no reason it should be a civil matter. The cause of action entirely arises out of allegedly criminal conduct, not a tort against the government. Only the government can bring a forfeiture claim. And the forfeiture claim necessarily encompasses criminal conduct. What makes forfeiture appropriate for a civil proceeding?### Assistant: It's more appropriate for a civil proceeding precisely *because* it's easier. You have to consider the purposes behind asset forfeiture and criminal law. Asset forfeiture is not there merely to punish or rehabilitate the accused (as is the purpose of criminal laws); it is there to prevent and "fight" crime. In other words, it exists, at least in part, to prevent future crimes, not punish prior ones. Think of it like a civil restraining order. Restraining orders do infringe on some of your freedoms (primarily freedom of movement), but it exists to prevent you from committing a crime against the object of the restraining order, not to punish you for having previously committed a crime against them. To address the points you made in your original post: > It is essentially a criminal punishment without protections of criminal procedure. It *is* essentially a fine, but you're wrong in thinking that in order to assess a fine the government needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. For a lot of infractions where the only punishment is a fine (for example, traffic tickets) and in many jurisdictions you don't get all the other good stuff we guarantee in criminal procedure. You don't have a right to an attorney nor do they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt if it is brought as a civil proceeding. Generally, you don't get criminal procedure protections unless you're looking at some sort of custody time. > Civil forfeiture creates terrible incentives for police. I agree, which is why I suggested that the police would have to go to court to fight to keep the assets and pay for the attorneys fees if they lose. It's hard to deny that it can be an effective tool for law enforcement so we need to take away the incentive for them to just take the money because they felt like it. > Criminal forfeiture does the job in cases of real need. Criminal forfeiture already exists but the purpose of criminal forfeiture is not the same as the purpose for civil forfeiture (see above about civil asset forfeiture vs criminal law). In light of the difference in purpose, criminal forfeiture doesn't really do the job that civil asset forfeiture is there to do, at least not sufficiently.### Human: I'm going to focus specifically on cash siezed. You do have a valid point about seizng assets that could be used in future crimes. However, many police departments seem to be taking the stance that cash especially is innocent until proven guilty. Granted, the percentage of people carrying around thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for lawful purposes is likely pretty low, if nothing else because it's a huge risk. That being said, it's a bunch of crap that the police can just yank cash from me for no real reason. What's the limit? If I just went to the ATM and have $100 on me, should they be able to take that? I might be using it to buy drugs. The seizing of cash is basically theft, even if it is state-sponsored.### Assistant: First, cash could be used in future crimes just as pretty much any other asset. In fact, it's probably more likely to be used in a future crime than most other assets so I don't really understand why you're distinguishing cash from other assets, but that's neither here nor there. I agree that being able to just yank your cash from you for no real reason is, from the individual's standpoint, bullshit; however, you also have to recognize that in many instances the policy of being able to yank people's cash on shakey grounds can serve a legitimate good. That's why I say "you want to take my asset now to keep me from doing something illegal in the immediate future?" Fine. Want to keep it? Prove your case to a court within a month of taking my assets. Failure to do so means you give me my ~~money~~ property back plus attorney's fees. At the end of the day, it's a balancing act: legitimate law enforcement tools vs. citizen rights.### Human: This is not the right way to go about combatting theft. You're doing something wrong if you compromise right to property to deter crime. Whoever enacted this law needs to have their head examined.

### Human: CMV: All it would take to destroy our democracy at this point is a successful attack on the scale of 9-11.### Assistant: >it would give him the ultimate fodder to override judiciary checks on his power How would he do this. Judaical checks are part of the constitution. A constitutional amendment would be required, there is no way in this environment are you going to get 38 states signing off on Trump becoming essentially a monarch.### Human: You remember that Patriot Act thing?### Assistant: Yes? That wasn't a constitutional amendment.### Human: It also isn't a constitutional law, yet here we are.### Assistant: The courts have modified it and upheld parts. I'm not sure how the example relates to the OP. The patriot act did not destroy democracy in the US.

### Human: I don't care about the environment. The human race is going extinct, it's just a matter of time, and it's not going to happen within my lifetime. CMV### Assistant: > I don't care about the environment. The human race is going extinct, it's just a matter of time, and it's not going to happen within my lifetime. Yes, and eventually [the whole Universe will become sterile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe). And as you admitted, you're gonna die. So, by that logic, why care about anything at all? > I'm slightly ashamed of it, but I really can't find the motivation to care. Change my view! There's no absolute, eternal and/or purely logical motivation for *anything*. If you're ashamed, then that's all you need. Your cue, if you will. Rebel against entropy while you can!### Human: I like to take an economic view on things, so here is my interpretation of OP's argument, and why I agree with him. There are a lot of high marginal impact activities that I can do to prevent or delay my immediate death, such as not killing myself, driving safely, quitting smoking etc. I think OP's argument is that there are not any activities with enough marginal impact to delay the ultimate destruction of humanity. Given OP's scarcity of time resources, he chooses to devote his resources to things that have a higher positive marginal impact on his or society's well-being/utility, perhaps by being a patient listener to his friends, learning to play an instrument or write code, or even just playing video games and getting high on the couch.### Assistant: [tragedy of the commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)### Human: actually resources genuinely held in common / public ownership - where the public exercises control over what happens to them - tend to get conserved and protected from abuse and depletion. PRIVATELY OWNED resources, and technically "public" ones where the public doesn't actually get to decide (ie. corrupt officials) are the ones that get quickly depleted, because profit motive. the idea of a "tragedy of the commons" tends to serve as an argument / propaganda in favor of privatization of public resources, even though totally unjustified by real world observations.### Assistant: If any one user is able to control anything about the resource or its use other than their own consumption of it, that's not what the tragedy of the commons refers to. It's pretty simple game theory, and the assumptions of simple game theory rarely correspond perfectly to the real world. But suffice it to say, many examples of it still exist in a classical form; one that immediately comes to mind is unregulated or under-regulated fisheries, many of which we've seen completely collapse due to individual users acting in a perfectly rational way given the rules of the game.

### Human: I think GMO's are not only safe, but that the controversy surrounding them is largely conspiracy nonsense fueled by anger at Monsanto's business practices. CMV?### Assistant: Just because the bad feelings are fueled by anger at Monsanto doesn't mean it is conspiracy nonsense. Genetic modification is not bad in and of itself. It actually works to strengthen crops and make them better for us. But the effects of widespread uniform use of GMOs are ultimately unsafe. Monsanto's practices (and genetic engineering in general) reduce biodiversity which leads to a very unstable system, where a single disease can immediately kill off all the crops everywhere or any change in climate could have disastrous effects. If you're growing crops you want to use the best genes that have been created. You aren't going to grow a sub-par version just so biodiversity doesn't take a hit. But when everyone does that, then we have a huge food crisis waiting to happen. Genetic engineering strengthens the individual parts but weakens the whole.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Removed - as per the sidebar, please include an explanation with each delta. Feel free to repost **with an explanation**. I'll remove /u/chemicalrocketeer's current delta so you won't overtax DeltaBot's puny robot mind.### Human: aw man :(### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: It is utterly unethical under any circumstances for Scotland to not take on its share of UK debt if it votes for independance### Assistant: Are they going to get an equivalent amount of cash/assets in government accounts, real estate, military equipment etc? If so, then sure they should share the debt. If not, then they shouldn't. They should only split the debt of they also get to split assets.### Human: I agree- if assets are split, then debt should be split. Crucially however, I do NOT think the £ counts as an asset- thoughts?### Assistant: BoE "owns the pound" and BoE "owns the debt". Debt is certainly an asset (in a weird way). Why should Scotland only take negative assets from the BoE and not positive assets?### Human: BoE owns the pound, but not the debt. The debt is owed and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund (i.e. the Treasury). To the extent that Scotland claims ownership of any assets of the United Kingdom, (military bases/arms, the 310 tons of gold owned by the government, the money in the Consolidated Fund, government facilities, etc.), it has to take responsibility for the debt which is guaranteed by those assets.### Assistant: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't government debt **owed** by the treasury **to** the BoE. In that sense, the BoE **owns** the debt, not the Treasury, as /u/RagingBeryllium claims.### Human: [This](http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docname=publications/operationalrules/infmemadd220813.pdf&page=operational_rules/Document) is the actual legal document which underlies all current issuance of debt by the UK. It is incredibly boring and I won't ask you to read it. But this is the relevant clause for who has the ultimate liability for all debt of the UK. >The principal of and interest on Stock and sums payable in respect of strips will be a charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The BoE has important roles in the debt market and in setting interest rates for new issues of UK debt. But the debt is paid by the National Loans Fund (part of the Treasury) with recourse to the Consolidated Fund (the principal account of the Treasury into which tax receipts go). Edit to add: the BoE also has a lot of UK debt on its books, so in some sense Treasury owes that debt to the BoE, and BoE sells/buys that debt to the public as a policy tool. Those sales to the public might have been what you were thinking of.

### Human: CMV: The SJW movement creates more intolerance and hatred than it eliminates.### Assistant: I would argue that there is no SJW movement. There is no unified set of ideals, no organization, no gathering place, no nothing. What you are seeing is a lot of individuals, some of which have negative views. SJW is a pejorative term applied to these people. When you see one person who says something like "All men are scum," that person becomes a SJW in your eyes. It's no longer one person with some toxic opinion, it's a representation of a movement. When you see someone else say something toxic that is completely unrelated, you recognize that person as a SJW too, and apply to them all the baggage that goes along with it. > Are you white? Male? Straight? Cisgendered? Skinny? Then basically, fuck you, you are the scum that causes everyone else's problems. I'm a straight, while cisgendered skinny male, and if someone I've never met hate me, who the fuck cares? It doesn't matter to me. Why should I get angry over it? Getting offended at trivial stuff a trait often applied to people labeled as SJWs, but it seems to be just as common among the groups criticizing them for it. > On the contrary, most people I come across nowadays seem to SUPPORT these people, and see them as some kind of martyr fighting the good fight against the oppressive forces in society that keeps them down. Regardless of how you feel about the *individuals* who hold negative views about you as an individual, the causes they tend to advocate for are legitimate, good, worthy causes. There is still a lot of sexism, racism, transphobia and other forms of discrimination in the world. The individuals who hold toxic views have those views for a reason. They've been burned. Doesn't justify hostility, but I can at least understand why they hold it. We should all try to have empathy though. Regardless what some random tumblr user thinks of me as a cisgender person, I should still help in the fight for transgender rights. I'm not a good person for recognition or approval, I'm a good person because it's right. > The movement as a whole is making hate ok, Can you give specific examples of where you think hate is being made acceptable? > but saying "all men/whites/straight/cisgendered people are X or should be treated like X," is not only ok, but applauded and seen as some sort of benefit to society. Can you give specific examples of this too? I haven't seen these kinds of statements given any kind of real broad support, and I'm curious why we seem to be having different experiences.### Human: > I would argue that there is no SJW movement. There is no unified set of ideals, no organization, no gathering place, no nothing. What you are seeing is a lot of individuals, some of which have negative views. SJW is a pejorative term applied to these people. I could argue the same things about feminism in general. There are no rules, nothing that makes you one and me not one (though god knows if you put five in a room, an hour later they'll all tell you they're the only *real* feminist there) There are no leaders. Not even any specific goals, save the mercurial "equality" whatever that means. So if there are feminists, there are also SJWs.### Assistant: There are people who refer to themselves as feminists, though. Despite a debate on specifics (which is complicated by the fact that their are several different meanings), Feminists do tend to be able to speak about the goal of feminism, whether as a philisophical ideal, liberation movement, or whatever else. There is no debate among SJWs as to what SJW stands for, or what it's meaning is. It is entirely put on them by others. SJW is more akin to "Do-gooder" or "Dirty Hippy".### Human: To keep this non-racist, Activist is to SJW as White Perosn is to White Trash.### Assistant: You just made my point. White person is a fairly obvious category with more-or-less strict guidelines on what is included (skin color, mostly), while White Trash is a label put on by others, generally a perjorative term, and can change depending on the person using it (for example, in The Outsiders, when Bob says to Ponyboy that Greasers are white trash with long hair, and Ponyboy responds that Socs are simply white trash with mustangs).### Human: ...I'm trying to keep it PG. Ya know what though. You're right. Those detestable scumbags are just your run of the mill feminists with nothing special about them. I was probably confused somewhere along the line, giving them the benefit of the doubt.### Assistant: I don't think you are making a clear argument, or are reading with comprehension. No one is arguing that SJWs are good, we are arguing that they don't have a movement or philosophy that they adhere to. I am not sure what you are trying to avoid saying or why you are trying so hard to not be racist when trying to clarify your definition of SJW, it's probably best you don't speak in code.

### Human: CMV: Inheritance tax is ridiculous.### Assistant: If we want to live in a merit based society, then allowing some people to inherit large sums of money will result in the misallocation of resources and unfair starting points. For instance a person might become a farmer simply because they inherited land and operating capital, whereas a person more adept at farming but without the advantage of inheritance might face far steeper or even reasonably insurmountable start up costs. Thus the rewards for production would be unfairly distributed and human capital would be inefficiently employed. [Note: this is a reason why an inheritance tax would be good - fairness and resource allocation. Implementation is a whole other problem.]### Human: >If we want to live in a merit based society, then allowing some people to inherit large sums of money will result in the misallocation of resources and unfair starting points. First of all I want to point out that living in a merit based society is at present unrealistic and absolutely not what we have, but moving on... ...Inheritance tax applies across the board. A privileged family's child still begins with an advantage over an under-privileged family's child. So how does inheritance tax help with this merit based society really?### Assistant: >A privileged family's child still begins with an advantage over an under-privileged family's child. So how does inheritance tax help with this merit based society really? It helps by removing one advantage. To get a more equitable, merit based outcome, of course the society would need to implement additional measures. But describing the various ways to fully implement a merit based society seems beyond the scope of your cmv.### Human: But it doesn't entirely remove the advantage. It diminishes the total amount inherited, but the poor child's inheritance is also diminished (albeit probably due to a lesser extent). Anything of meaningful monetary value is likely taxed for both. The rich child still retains a monetary advantage over the poorer one. And yes building a merit based society is beyond what I wanted to discuss here, however desirable it might be.### Assistant: > but the poor child's inheritance is also diminished (albeit probably due to a lesser extent) I'm not familiar with other countries' laws, but in the US, there is an enormous exemption to the tax. No one who ever considered themselves poor would pay a cent in tax.### Human: Well then that's fine, but that's a lack of inheritance tax, which is what I'm advocating for. It gets more complicated when you look at other countries' systems and economies and people considered poor by some standards might still be paying it.### Assistant: It's not quite the same as a lack of a tax, because the richer you are, the greater effective tax will be levied. Since the purpose is to prevent rich, insular families from forming, the tax still serves most of its purpose.### Human: Is that the purpose, though? Insular, dynastic families still exist and are able to lobby governments, so I doubt the intent is to upset them. The purpose is first and foremost to raise revenue, and the rich families are still rich and the poorer ones don't get their house (to simplify the problem a bit).### Assistant: I'm quite sure that's the intent of the tax, though it obviously doesn't work that well. It isn't a fair simplification to say the poor don't get their house. It's a very rare situation worldwide, so far as I am aware, that anyone's house gets taken away as a result of the tax, even for the extremely rich.### Human: Technically the house doesn't get taken, that's not what the government says. It's just that they want a portion of the houses value, which the individual can't pay without selling the house, and then can't sell the house in the current economic climate, especially not for stated value. That's a failure in the concept. I used that as an example but it like a worst case scenario where the concept comes crashing down. I really believe this is an unjust tax.### Assistant: One example where things go very poorly does not justify a total removal of the system. Black people are disproportionately targeted by police, and die unjust deaths. So, all police are evil, laws shouldn't exist or be upheld, and we ought to tear down the government, right? No. If there's a problem fix that problem, don't start from scratch unless it's necessary to fix it.### Human: But when does it go right? When does it achieve the goal of (as other people have said) working towards a merit based society? If it fails more than it succeeds than it's a lemon. And how important is it as a revenue stream comparatively?### Assistant: Where is it failing more than succeeding?### Human: I said it in another comment chain. How many people from rich, dynastic families has it brought down to level of a normal person and demanded they succeed through merit? As my completely anecdotal story in the OP demonstrated it can fuck regular people over pretty hard.### Assistant: Basically none, though it does have some effect, which is why extremely rich people are lobbying for the inheritance tax to be reduced/removed. I'd argue for it to be increased, for the same reasons. Why are you admitting something is an anecdote (and thus not good data) then basing your argument on it?

### Human: CMV: I don't believe people are fundamentally good.### Assistant: First of all, the world is in a far better state than ever before. There is less war, less hunger, longer lifespans, less disease, and a higher standard of living than at any other point in human existence. Much of this has been accomplished through goodness. Second, the logistics of helping aren't always easy. Many children starve in third world countries because of corrupt governments. Food and medicine shipped their for aid gets confiscated and resold, or used by those without a need. Should other countries go to war to depose those bad leaders? How bad do they have to be? Most people do act unselfishly. If a starving African child went up to a well off person in a fancy restaurant, the vast majority of us would give up our food to help the child. But there is a limit to how much misery we can conceive of at one time. Should we help the starving children, or those dying of AIDS, or people dying of cancer, or the homeless or any of an endless list. At some point, we'd be paralyzed by the enormity of the world's suffering, and curl up into a ball if we ever fully comprehended it. But enjoying life while also helping others is not choosing evil. If we withhold every pleasure until there is no pain in the world, we will all live very unhappy lives. Being selfless part of the time is still a " fundamentally good" thing to do.### Human: > First of all, the world is in a far better state than ever before I would say that even though we are moving from a bad state to a less bad state, we are still not good. > Second, the logistics of helping aren't always easy I don't think people are generally bad, just that when things start to get hard, morals don't matter. to paraphrase fro the film 'waking life': what is a more universal human attribute, fear or laziness? > but enjoying life while also helping others is not choosing evil I agree that just because people are not good, doesn't mean they are evil. But still, they are not good.### Assistant: But look at many cases where regular people volunteer to help fill sandbags when rivers that aren't near them are flooding. The people who put out charging stations for others who lost power in hurricane sandy. The millions of dollars that floor the Red Cross whenever there is a disaster. These aren't cases of "people are only good as so far it's good for them to be good". Yes, in all situation, there are assholes who view it as an opportunity to profit, but most people try to help in the ways they can think of helping.### Human: This is true, people do amazing things for each other. We go beyond what could be expected if we where merely egoistic agents. But so much more needs to be done, and could be done, but we don't. On a global scale, our efforts to do good are so tiny in comparison to the evils that are going on. If pointing to the good in humans is sufficient to state that people are good, then the same should apply to pointing out the bad.### Assistant: But why does the amount of work to do impact the degree of goodness? Someone might be a snow shoveler. They shovel their driveway. But just because there are many more driveways and parking lots that could be shoveled doesn't change what they do. Similarly, you've agreed that: 1) the world has gotten better, even if it's not "good". Still, the only conclusion is that those trying to do good are "beating" those trying to do bad. 2) people do amazing things that are beyond what is expected. How does this not prove fundamental goodness? If your post were "We aren't doing enough good", then you might have a point, but it seems that you've conceded the fundamental goodness of people.### Human: > But why does the amount of work to do impact the degree of goodness? There must be a point at which a job is either done or unfinished. In the example of the snow shoveler, imagine the whole street is covered in snow, he has a responsibility to clear all the snow. He has the time and resources to shovel it, but he does not. How can we then say he did a good job? > How does this not prove fundamental goodness? Take the snow shoveler again. I'm not saying he has to go beyond his responsibility, though if he does, thats great).He just has to do what is normal for him to do. The same goes for goodness in humans. We are responsible for each others well being. But it seems that for the most of us, we only feel responsible in so far it effects our own life's. Furthermore, it's not just that we don't act upon other peoples misery that does not influence our life's, we make decisions that greatly impact others negatively for our own improvement for the same reason. For example, everybody know that the way a lot of the products we buy are manufactured under circumstances we would deem unmoral, yet we still buy these products just because they are cheaper. We know it's bad, but we don't feel responsible.### Assistant: It will never be finished. We will never eliminate all poverty, all hunger, all disease. You're asking the person to shovel the entire city, and all he does is shovel his house and that of the two little old ladies who live next door. It would be great for him to shovel the city, but it's not reasonable, nor is it realistic. Yes, if everyone worked together to do it, then it could happen, but there isn't someone leading the charge. It's not the lack of will, it's the lack of organization. But how do you fault the indivual for not dedicating their life to shoveling?### Human: > But how do you fault the individual for not dedicating their life to shoveling? It's exactly because he only shovels his own house and that of the two little old ladies. What about the old lady three houses further down the road? What about the other people who are able shovelers? There are so many old ladies with houses in need of shoveling and yet, even though there are enough strong shovelers, their houses remains unshoveled. And why? because people only care as so far these old ladies can walk over to complain. It got a little dark in there, so allow me to add some balance. I think people CAN be good when they are put in the right spot at the right time. I think it's a combination of circumstances and moral development of a person that decides whether he will do the right thing. But the same applies for doing the bad thing. People always weigh the ups and downs, the risks and rewards for doing something. We have created a society that influences that internal consideration of people in such a way that they will do the right thing most of the time. We are heavily evolved to prefer honest social exchange and tend to punish cheaters even at our own cost. However, I believe we are not 'good' of our self's in the sense that when the circumstances are so that we can benefit at the cost of others without any consequences to our self (be it social, emotional, financial, etc) people will act selfishly even though they rationally know it's a bad thing to do.

### Human: CMV:I think that Political Correctness is often bad because it hinders open discussion about past and present societal problems.### Assistant: Politically Correct is a derisive term, used to make it sound like you are changing the way you describe people or groups just for 'votes' - in other words you don't actually give a shit you just want to sound good. Inclusive language (which is what people mean when they say PC) is actually doing the opposite of what you suggest it does; it asks that you stop and think about the terms you use and why you use them, instead of just reaching for the first word that comes into your head. A really easy example is using 'gay' to mean bad, or lame, or stupid. Yes, I know you mean bad not literally homosexual, but the association is gay = bad, and each time you use it you are reinforcing that link. Another example is the way that groups of people are described. By using gendered language when you are talking about an action that isn't really biologically linked, you are excluding all the people you are trying to talk to who don't match. For example, you might be talking about parenting but only use she/her/mommy. You might be talking about customer service in a mechanics and only use he/his/guy. Or you might be talking about love but only use hetero married couples in all your examples.### Human: [That's retarded.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOBoKxEcVAA#t=14)### Assistant: See in that scene, Rick is using the term for what it means, not "disparaging the differently-abled". Morty drives home the idea that saying the word for its intended purpose is still wrong, which makes no sense. Rick then takes his chance and calls that line of reasoning retarded.### Human: I believe this is the issue which OP raised and the reason I linked to the scene, which had struck me as a tongue in cheek manner of driving the point home.### Assistant: I'm confused by the video. He uses the term in it's "for what it means" context when referring to what the machine could have done to him (make him mentally retarded), and then goes ahead to use it in the pejorative manner. I'd really like help understanding because I've seen that video before and see it as the equivalent of a thought-terminating cliche.### Human: The key is in what the kid says after the initial use of retarded. Something like 'well its still wrong because some social activist groups have decided that using it is harmful and they feel better about themselves for telling you not to use it'. He's making a comment about how stopping people from using 'retarded' doesn't do a damn thing to help actual retarded people. All it does is make you feel like you've done something good.### Assistant: Asking people to stop using the term retarded as an insult does do something to help people who are intellectually disabled. People who are identified as intellectually disabled know when the term "retarded" is being used to put people down, and I've worked with individuals whose feelings that would hurt to hear. These people aren't "slow" as the term retarded would imply. They often simply lack particular functioning. Should we all change how we joke so a minority of individuals' feelings aren't hurt? I personally do, but I'm not forcing that on others.### Human: I can respect that but we aren't talking about walking into a group of retarded people and then making retard jokes or walking into a gay bar and using the word gay 'incorrectlly'. We're talking about people who 'take offense' even though they are not involved. We are talking, really, about emotions. Now sure, emotions can be fun and strong but they shouldn't rule your life and they should NOT be the arbiter in your actions or your political activism. Those things should be based in reason.

### Human: I believe, from a nonreligious and completely logic-based view, that since we respect human life, abortion, until we learn WHEN life begins, should be considered murder and should be handled by the states, to protect the rights of what, at the very least, could be a human life. CMV.### Assistant: First, "when life begins" is in the "not even wrong" category; life is a continuous process and there is no point at any time where the cells involved in reproduction are not alive and not human. The question you're after is "when can we consider that collection of cells an actual human being?" It would be entirely ridiculous to do so at any point during the first trimester when it doesn't even have more than the most rudimentary central nervous system. Second, even asking the right question, the answer is actually irrelevant to whether or not abortion should be legal; the relevant question is "at what point does your right to control the uses of your own body end"? We as a society have agreed that I have no right whatsoever to the use of your body or any part thereof without your consent _even if my life depends on it_. I cannot demand you donate a kidney to save my life, or part of your liver, or even blood plasma - I can't even demand you walk into danger to help me out of it. That's because it is your body, your ultimate possession, and you have sovereign control over it. So...even if we decide against all logic to treat that fetus as a full-blown human being, _it would still have no right to the use of the woman's uterus if she didn't want it there_. Nor would it have the right to force her through the medical risks of bearing the pregnancy to term and the severe physical changes involved in a full-term pregnancy, not even to save its own life. Abortion therefore needs to remain legal as a protection of a woman's right to sovereign control over her own body.### Human: So, if we say that a fetus does not have the right to use the uterus without the mother wanting it there, can we say that the only reason it is dependent on the mother in the first place is (assuming it was consensual) because she "put it" there. So it's not fair that she can "kick it out" if the only reason it's there is by her actions (like I said, not including rape).### Assistant: Why exclude rape? If abortion is murder as per the argument you made in the OP, why is it less a murder if the zygote was fertilized due to rape as opposed to failed birth control? Once you make that exception the whole right-to-life argument falls apart. It either has a right to life or doesn't, regardless of how it was conceived.### Human: I wasn't excluding rape for the entire argument, just for the "right to use a uterus" argument.### Assistant: So does that mean you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of fetuses conceived during a rape or not allowed in those cases?

### Human: CMV: If a student physically attacks another student and the victim fights back, the victim should not be punished.### Assistant: My school had a certain student who liked to pick fights with kids. He would follow them and harass them until they snapped and hit him at which point he was "defending himself" even though he was provoking the fight. We changed our school rule for this reason. He thought he could get away with fighting people, which was his goal, if he wasnt the one throwing the first blow. So he would taunt kids who had a death in the family, harass brothers of a disabled students or gay students. Go after friends of people who had some sort of tragedy. This kid was low and vile. But because he wasnt throwing the first punch, by your standard, he would have been in the clear. When it comes to fights its not always clear who really started it. Sometimes its a nudge in the hallway, sometimes its mocking the younger brother of a sibling that just died.### Human: When I was in school (back in black and white) there was a kid at the school next to ours that apparently did this all through elementary and junior high. He loved to pick on anyone who had any slight vulnerability and as soon as they snapped, he'd run away and the "attacker" would get in trouble. I was dating a girl at this school and once just visiting, the kid spent 15 min pestering me about being from another school. I was tempted myself. Finally a wrestler he picked on had enough, but was smart enough to not just physically attack him. So the jock started just *relentlessly* picking back on the kid, started a bunch of nasty nicknames for him, told SPH stories about the kid to all the girls, even started rumors about the kid's mom - turns out the harassment was a result of some insecurity due to his mom's drinking - and basically carried out a focused, intentional campaign against the kid and returned the favor 10-fold until the kid snapped and attacked first. **THEN** the player beat the living [expletive] out of the kid - like knocked out multiple teeth and maybe broke a nose, etc. The school had apparently been frustrated about not being able to really go after the kid - since he wasn't actually fighting - so that they essentially lectured both of them at length about harassment, bullying, etc. and then just gave them detention for the actual fight. Let the beating be the real punishment. As I understand it, the kid never did it again. Edit: Not saying I condone this. Just that it was a similar story and there was a "solution" reached.### Assistant: I've never understood why "harassment" has never been an actionable offence. If the teachers know a kid is being a royal shit to people, what the fuck is this "hands tied" crap? Punish the little shit, right then.### Human: This was 20-some years ago. So, especially at that time, punishing someone for insults or calling someone else a name wasn't really considered acceptable. 'Sticks and stones' and all. Besides the overall philosophical debate about freedom of speech and punishment of mere words, there's also the practical component of how do you draw the line? If you punish Johnny for persistently describing, in significant detail, why Steve's mom is a whore, do you have to punish Steve for just saying to Alan "your mom's a whore"? If so, then do you also punish Chris for calling Jason a "son of a bitch"? What about when Eric jokingly takes his friend Mike's pencil and Mike laughingly responds "Hey, you son of a bitch, that's my favorite!" Or what about punishing Sarah for directly calling Jessica a bitch? And then what about when Jessica calls out to her 3 friends as she walks up to school, "Hey bitches, miss me yesterday?"### Assistant: Based on the school I went to, all of those instances would at the least get a talking to. I don't know if things have changed, but 10 years ago curse words were still frowned upon in my school.### Human: In many urban public schools, talking to *teachers* like that isn't able to really be punished it's so pervasive.

### Human: CMV: I believe a world government is a good thing### Assistant: A world government is bad for the same reason that we don't like business monopolies -- we need competition so that the best ideas win and everybody else benefits. Who knows what a "world government", even formed with the best intentions, would turn into? How many "democracies" have devolved into dictatorship? Look what happened to Germany in the 1930's... what would prevent our "world government" from electing a Hitler, and once it did, who would stop him? Further, how would you propose to keep this government together? Countries big and small see civil wars -- with thousands of languages, cultures, religions, and other factions, how could you possibly administer such a world without constant rebellion and violence? How long would the Middle East be content living under Western liberalism? How heavily could you tax the developed countries to buy third-world infrastructure and health care before they revolted? Even the United States, arguably one of the most stable nations in world history, recognizes some of these challenges and administers its government federally with very strong state and local governments. I recognize that my "answer" here is a bunch of questions, but small empires are unstable, large empires chaotic, and a global empire, even if you could keep it together, would certainly result in constant civil conflict with a nearly inevitable dictatorship.### Human: A world government is conversely "good" for the same reasons. Figuring that humans will eventually use all the resources on planet Earth, especially at an exponential rate once unified as a single civilization, we will need to get off this planet. As a world government, collaboration and funding can be increased to work towards new space age developments. As evidenced by America's current policies with NASA, this is a subset of technology falling by the wayside. Eventually, material resources are going to run out, and when that time happens, we will severely regret cutting funding and research for exploring space. However, under this hypothetical world government, we could be expanding already into the galaxy.### Assistant: I'd argue that a global space exploration union under the current world order would be far more likely to accomplish that goal than a world government. The ISS has proven that nations can work together -- what's really standing in the way is national appetite for the costs given the perceived benefits. If we were to get a world government, first you have to deal with likely decades of implementation struggles -- countries that undergo revolution or civil war, even if it's peaceful, don't tend to go straight to space exploration, it's more like "let's build some institutions first." Second, you need to be confident that this one government prioritizes space exploration above all the current governments, which is definitely not a given. Third, I'd guess citizens would be much less likely to support this program... if you give rich, well fed Americans a vote, lots will say "defund space." We get to do it anyway because we have enough support. But if you give that vote to 5B starving people, are they going to vote for food or for rockets? We're much better off pitching the benefits to the current global environment and getting a cooperative effort going than burning the whole thing down and hoping it turns out differently next time.### Human: we already produce enough food to feed the world, so the choice isn't food or rockets### Assistant: So you think we can process and distribute all that food to remote areas at no cost? We can't.### Human: I didn't say at no cost.### Assistant: The implication that there wouldn't be a budgetary tradeoff between space programs and food suggests that there's no budgetary burden of at least one of the two, and we know rockets cost money...### Human: You're implying that it would be fiscally restricting a space program to feed the world, when even if it were the case, (I don't think it is) in terms of a long term investment, feeding everyone would inadvertently pay for the space program.

### Human: CMV: Felons should be allowed to vote.### Assistant: Where would they vote? It can't be where they are incarcerated because that could completely distort local elections if there are towns with a small population that have a prison. Should someone who has been in prison for 30 years be able to influence the elections of the place they lived before being arrested? What about felons who will spend the rest of their life in prison without the possibility of parole? I generally agree with you, but I think *some* limit might make sense.### Human: Would that distort local elections? Those people need representation too. If they live in prison, that is where their district is. Just make a law saying that a person serving time can't be elected.### Assistant: But they don't necessarily pay taxes there or have access to local schools, roads, or other town services. If we are talking about 500 prisoners in a town of 50,000 people that doesn't make much of a difference, but if there is a prison with 1,000 inmates in a rural town with a very small population it could effectively destroy the town--and the prisoners wouldn't necessarily suffer any consequences.### Human: People in jail are still citizens that require representation. If the number of people in jail is a problem find a way to prevent it from becoming one.### Assistant: I generally think all citizens should have the right to vote, but for practical reasons a state may concentrate its prisoners in a rural location and the prison population may be drastically higher than the local residents. I don't think those prisoners should get to vote on town government for a town they don't really interact with in any meaningful way.### Human: That's fine, but for them to have no representation anywhere is non-democratic.### Assistant: No rights in a democracy are absolute. We restrict the right to freedom or even take away someones right to live if they commit certain crimes. It isn't absurd to consider removing the right to vote as a punishment. We don't let children or non-citizen residents vote, either.### Human: I agree with you that rights can be taken away. To me I find it scary that we can have one group of people that we are willing to remove any right for representation. I think think that may part of the reason we have so many people in jail right now.### Assistant: I generally think everyone should have the right to vote, but I don't think that given felons the right to vote would actually fix prison overcrowding or overly-harsh sentencing.### Human: I don't think their actual vote would cause significant change, but the fact that they could would make sure people up for re/election do not ignore them.

### Human: CMV: i think venice should be evacuated and left to sink### Assistant: There are efforts in place (including a $5 billion Euro floor prevention project that just became operational) that may prevent the inevitable. Every day there are more than 60,000 tourists visiting Venice. There is also business and commerce. All would be lost if Venice were evacuated. And how would you handle the resettlement costs? If you own a multimillion dollar property in Venice, and the government tells you you have to leave are you left with nothing? Where would you move? What would you do with the historical architecture? **EDIT: Why are so many people downvoting the OP? They are participating and responding. The whole point of CMV is to share views, not to have everyone agree with you.**### Human: >Every day there are more than 60,000 tourists visiting Venice. There is also business and commerce. All would be lost if Venice were evacuated. from what i saw, it's not doing so well at the current moment, construction wise. i think it would be more devastating to be part of a tragedy such as building collapse or drowning than to rebuild your commerce elsewhere. i would imagine resettlement costs would be roughly equal, if not less, than fixing structures only to have to fix them again years later because the shifting tectonic plates and sinking city has caused roughly all the construction to be virtually unstable.### Assistant: There's an enormous difference between "not doing well", and being completely out of work and a home.### Human: i said not doing well *construction wise*. and i *have* experienced being out of work and a home (whilst pregnant to boot), thank you very much.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Your comment has been removed, and this is a warning. Do not break rule 2.

### Human: CMV: What the government is doing to stop Tesla Motors is bad news for small businesses with big ideas.### Assistant: The flaw in your argument is that very few laws have been passed targeting Tesla. Most of these "dealer protection" laws have been on the books for decades, and some of these laws, like the law passed in Michigan recently, actually expand Tesla's ability to sell in state by clarifying that sales are allowed at any licensed dealership, not just the manufacturer's (for example, new Tesla's can legally be sold at a Ford dealership). The issue is not that legislators are targeting Tesla, but that Tesla is attempting to operate outside the existing legal framework. In general, I support companies doing that, like Uber, Lyft, or Monkey Parking, but in Tesla's case, the laws don't have much wiggle room. Basically, while the heart of your view is sound, the idea that the government is doing things to stop Tesla is wrong. They just aren't doing much at all to help.### Human: But don't you think there should be an easier for new companies with new models to start. And uphill battle that bad idea in an open market### Assistant: I'm not disagreeing with you on that regard. But the basic idea that government is "trying to stop Tesla" is inherently flawed. At the moment, there are a set of rules for the industry to follow, and insisting that everyone play by the existing rules at least for the time being is not inherently unfair.### Human: Yes, but when "free market" supporting government officials are enacting laws to prevent a new business from having the same opportunities as another... well, it's not that hard to see why it's fucked. The rules are unfair.### Assistant: No one is stopping tesla from following the same rules as everyone else.

### Human: CMV: Campus rape response policies inevitably throw some people under the bus.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Why is "campus police" in quotes? Every college campus police department is a sworn police organization, your "so called" police are real cops. Thats like saying when a crime is commited in NYC only Boston cops should be allowed to investigate.### Assistant: That's not true. You may be thinking of college police departments in cities. Where I went to school, we only had "safety & security" officers. You can bet they threw their weight around like police, they just didn't have any of the training.### Human: Ok, but then they would be campus security, not campus police. They also would have no power to detain/arrest someone and certainly no power to investigate a rape charge. In those cases, their default action *would* be to call an outside police department.### Assistant: I don't think you understand what's happening all across America. Those are precisely the people who are doing this type of investigation. Why did you think that 12 Harvard Law professors signed a letter protesting the new policies?### Human: Well, [it was 28 not 12](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html). And the original comment that I replied to, since deleted, was saying that schools should call outside investigators because they assumed that campus PD weren't real cops, which is untrue. The professors are actually angry that Harvard did [exactly that](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/02/harvard-overhaul-way-handles-sexual-assault-reports/f9vQgdGeHTeg3vByODQ7jO/story.html). >Harvard apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials, rather than exercise independent judgment about the kind of sexual harassment policy that would be consistent with law and with the needs of our students and the larger university community. The law professors are mad that the university adopted government suggestions rather than keep the investigations in house. Thay are also mad that Harvard has lowered the threshold for what actually constitutes harassment and or rape... >The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing. >The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial. >The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation. >Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by: >Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law. >Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students. Basically, the professors are angry that the university took it upon themselves, without consultation with either faculty or students, to lower the threshold for crime, limit avenues for the accused to defend themselves, and basically hold the accused as guilty until proven innocent. Of *course* the law professors are pissed. They are supposed to teach LAW at what is arguably the world's premier university but the school they work for has zero respect for the foundations of that law. So, not to sound snarky, but I don't think that you understand the article that you cited, or even worse, you used it as an example without actually reading it.### Assistant: Hey, on mobile, but no offence taken. We all get snarky sometimes. Here's what you didn't understand. When they say that they're angry about the school deferring to the demands of federal officials, they're talking about the officials behind title ix. Specifically, this is the department of education civil rights committee if I'm remembering right. I'd pull out the exact name of the organization, but again, mobile. This is the organization that requires schools to handle these issues internally. Pretty specific regulations that describe an absurd system of internal litigation without much jurisprudence are being pushed into these schools. It is true that on the face of it some of these schools are going above and beyond the wording of title ix, but there have been cases in which a school (tufts) found for the accused under the wording of the rule and still got threatened with cut funding. If you get a chance, dig around for that piece in the nyt about the issue. I wish I remembered that writer's name, but he suggested a system in which schools provided a lawyer to advise the accuser and accompany him or her to the police.### Human: But they are mad that what Harvard did goes "significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law". At least the way I'm reading it, which admittedly could be completely wrong, the law profs are saying that Harvard is basically making their own laws and limiting the defense of anyone accused. On top of that, it seems to be related to school discipline only, something like expulsion, since obviously Harvard can't unilaterally throw someone in jail. They also brought up the funding issue, which I didn't quote, but their argument was basically "to hell with federal funding", and they are correct. Harvard's endowment currently sits at $36.4 billion, with a B. That [puts them in the top 50% of *countries*, when compared to GDP.](http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2014-data-and-charts) They don't need the funding and they could have taken a stand against students committing these crimes and FOR those accused of such things. I don't think anyone would disagree that anyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. Harvard could have won *both* sides of the issue but chose not to, is what I think the professors are upset about, and in doing so those accused are guilty until proven innocent. Oh, and I appreciate you not being offended but you know how tone gets lost in text...### Assistant: Well, the way I read it, they're mostly mad that students accused of a crime are having their reputations ruined and being penalized without any fact finding, legal representation or due process. Again, it's true that they're going a little above and beyond in a ridiculous way - namely the reinterpretation of consent laws to mean never while intoxicated. The rules on the books day that consent can't be given while incapacitated, but that doesn't mean you can't give it when you're intoxicated. The real issue I think they see is the bogus trials though. As far as funding, yes Harvard could pass on it. Lots and lots of schools can't though. Well, anyone but Harvard actually.

### Human: CMV: I believe the media's coverage of a child/teacher sex-scandal harms the "victim" more than the actual sexual activity with the teacher.### Assistant: > i personally do not know how, I was a 14 year old boy once This is what's fucked up about people today. If a grown man fucked a 14 year old girl, he would be socially crucified. [An adult rapes a child and you can't figure out how that negatively impacts their lives?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikd0ZYQoDko)### Human: But if the man wasn't socially crucified and it wasn't a social taboo, would it fuck up the 14 year old girl? Or is it all the news stories saying she was taken advantage of by a sick sick man, yadda, yadda, that screw with her more? Also, I don't think that guy in the video was ever raped. It is just a piece he wrote, projecting how he thinks boys might feel. Pretty poorly written too.### Assistant: I am aware of many cases of rape that do not make it to the media that cause severe psychological trauma to the victim. I think OP refers to cases where a 14 year old willingly has sex with the teacher and the scandal is what causes the psychological damage.### Human: Yes, I am talking about 14 year old girls that willing have sex with adult men. I don't think biological sex matters. Girls want sex too when they are 14, it isn't a boy thing. I am just saying his question, I think he means both sexes, not just boys. You are making it into a sexist thing. I think he only used the boy/woman example because it is hte most recent event in the media.### Assistant: Remove gender then and the point is the same.

### Human: I think that having children today in a developed country is more of a hobby than it is a necessity. CMV### Assistant: Much depends on exactly what you mean by a "hobby" and a "necessity". Certainly, having children is necessary for you to promulgate your genes and thereby take meaningful part in the multi-billion year long evolutionary game of which we are just the latest link the chain. Perhaps that's a "hobby", but tell it to peacocks. Also... have you ever had children? I mean, yes, it occupies a lot of your time, and it gives quite a lot of enjoyment and fulfillment, but it's a grind... it takes a lot of effort, and the effort is itself not usually that much fun. Contrast this to a typical "hobby" like skiing, where taking part in the activities of the hobby is actually the point of the hobby, and people do that for fun. I'll also point out that your dismissal of the societal level problem is too quick. The only way that any non-productive retired people can be supported is by the efforts of those people that are still working. There's not as much of a one-to-one relationship between your survival in old age and having progeny as it used to be, but then it never really was a 1 to 1 relationship. In feudal times, your progeny were more important to supporting the aristocracy than you.### Human: Well passing on genes and making sure the human race continues is something that I'm sure at least some of the other 7 billion people of the world will do. I wouldn't call that a hobby but I'm only taking into account the individual choice on a small scale in an developed country. I don't have children of my own but my SO has 2 who I've become a second father for so i know of its far from all fun and games. How ever I used to swim at a high level and have had some gruesome trainings swimming over 10k in one set. I wouldn't say I enjoyed that either though I enjoyed the result. Much as one might enjoy the result of all the diaper changing and disaplining. Like I said I'm fully aware this wouldn't work on a society wide scale but if you just assume that the rest of society will act as it does. It makes your personal choice a hobby because the general population will grow whether you have a child or not.### Assistant: Oh, another argument: reproduction appears to be evolved into every species as an instinctual drive, including humans. And another one: While I wouldn't disagree that people have children for their personal enrichment more than because their children are necessary for their later survival, I think calling it a "hobby" trivializes this and doesn't accurately describe it. Having children is not like collecting stamps, or swimming, or drinking wine. Hobbies can be stopped whenever you want, because ultimately you *only* affect yourself. Reproduction, in addition to providing personal enrichment, creates a lifelong *obligation/duty* in a way that no "hobby" does.### Human: I raise tortoises. Is that a hobby? Or a life long obligation/duty?### Assistant: If it's a "duty" it's entirely a self-imposed one that you could give up at any time with no societal approbation. I know you don't make soup out of tortoises, but if you could no one could care less.

### Human: CMV: Music is completely subjective. There is no possible way to prove that one piece of music is better than any other, this will always lead to subjective opinions or extra-musical ideas.### Assistant: Keep in mind that the inherent subjectivity of interpretation doesn't mean that every interpretation is equally supportable. There is no such thing as "objectively" good music, but there are many agreed-upon criteria based on centuries of study, comparison, and analysis.### Human: There are no agreed upon criteria that I can find.### Assistant: Then you have not looked very hard. Every University has music theory courses, music history courses, and musicology courses that will teach you these things.### Human: I'm aware of all those. First of all, most music theory is merely a tool for analysis. It doesn't tell you how to write anything or tell what's right and wrong. There are the rules of common practice harmony and counterpoint however. Pop music, which most people enjoy tends to ignore most rules of voice leading and so on, so does jazz, anything written after 1900, or anything from the East. Music history and musicology provide no grounds for aesthetic judgement, they only tell you what has been. Or what was acceptable within a given time period, due to the subjective tastes of the time.### Assistant: Pop and Jazz follow almost all of the rules. In particular Jazz cannot exist without a deep understanding of the rules and knowing when to bend and when to break them. Music history is about studying the historic context of the aesthetics and by studying them you can better understand the current trends in aesthetics. Musicology specifically studies modern trends and compares them to historic ones at tiems.### Human: So we are trying to say that we can determine how good a piece of jazz is by the rules of harmony is does and doesn't follow? Let me ask this also, are all the rules of jazz harmony agreed upon or is some of it contentious. For instance, some things which are taught as rules at Berklee, but to some people breaking them sounds perfectly fine?### Assistant: You can determine its quality by how complexly it is created. Which rules it chooses to follow and which it does not, and why it chooses to break things. Even classical music broke the rules all the time for specific effects. The rules of basic theory are taught as though they are hard set in the same way that the rules of basic physics are taught that they are hard set. In reality the rules of both disciplines are too complex to bet set in concrete. There are always exceptions to the rules and times that they will be bent or broken. The sign of a skilled composer (be it Motzart, or a modern pop artist) is how and when they bend and break the rules and doing it on purpose rather than by being sloppy.### Human: But this would mean that the more complex something is, the better it is. Which is clearly not satisfactory. Some people would say that Mussorgsky is a better composer than Mozart. Because they find Mozart too saccharine or they find opera inherently cheesy. But Mussorgsky knew almost no counterpoint and composed in an almost reckless manner. Likewise so did Gluck.### Assistant: No, but it does mean that its complexity is a factor in how good it is. Something extremely simply like Gregorian Chant is gorgeous in the right contexts, but something of equal simplicity in a different context could be drivel because of its lack complexity.### Human: So there are other factors at play besides complexity of course. But this the problem, because you can say 'this is better because it's complex'. But 'not everything has to be complex to be good, and not everything good is complex.' It's easy to say something like 'a good melody has to have balance.' But then there will be a melody that's very unbalanced that lots of people still like. So it can't serve as a rule, it can't be objective criteria.### Assistant: Of course it can be an objective rule. It simply cannot be a universal rule. Something does not have to apply to all situations to be an objective rule.### Human: To say 'this is what makes good music except for all the times when it doesn't' is too vague for me. It seems much simpler to say that maybe we can't decide on criteria and each person must decide for themself.### Assistant: Each Genre has a set of criteria. What is a rule in one set may not be a rule in another. Your problem is that you are trying to create a set of rules for music as a whole.### Human: I think the criteria of genres is completely irrelevant, it was you who told me that this could determine if a piece of music is objectively bad.### Assistant: Yes. Within the criteria of the genre or genres that it is a part of. You denying the legitimacy of that criteria is of no consequence on its validity.### Human: Could you give the criteria then for one specific genre? In such a way that I could have specific rules for how to write objectively good music for that genre.

### Human: CMV: There's nothing wrong with me smoking marijuana at the end of the day### Assistant: Well quite simply, it's illegal. Now this doesn't matter from a morality or mental/physical health perspective, but it's important. You seem to have a bright future, is getting high worth the potential hell that getting busted could bring down on you? Also, using something as a reward is awfully similar to how many addictions develop. You go through a period of stress, and once it's over, you relax and take your drug. Over a period of time, you come to associate that drug with the good feeling of relaxation. You may find yourself using the drug as a reward after smaller and smaller accomplishments. [There was a comment on a CMV a couple weeks ago about this effect with cigarettes](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/267852/cmv_i_am_a_16_year_old_who_wants_to_start_smoking/choba2w), obviously nicotine has more potent addictive effects, but pay attention to the trend of using it as "reward". Or you may find yourself getting unable to relax unless you take the drug. People love to talk about how marijuana isn't addictive since there isn't much in the way of withdrawal, but any time you're chemically inducing the reward system, there's potential for things to go awry.### Human: I'm actually not trying to change OP's view, but I will offer support to this response, as it's a very valid one. So, no, there's nothing wrong per se, but careful not to tread the slippery slope I, and many other partakers have. Source: I used to smoke erry day and pretty much all day to be honest. Once I cut it out, pot actually kinda became more fun(as I could differentiate between my state of sobriety and high much more greatly and I didn't have to smoke as much anymore)### Assistant: This is my personal opinion on the subject. I have two kids, a job at a company I love, and a future that looks great. The idea that I can travel in my car with several kegs of beer and be told to enjoy myself, but an ounce of pot could have my kids become wards of the state scares the crap out of me. So while I have no objection to controlled, moderated use of recreational substances, the threat of being the victim of heavy handed nanny state legislation that could strip me of everything I've worked so hard for is a prime deterrent. I can only hope we one day develop more sensible drug policy in the future, but until then, it's off my radar.### Human: May I ask which state you live in? Is that the case across most states? Certainly in Canada you would not have to give up your job or kids if you got caught with a personal amount of bud. Most times you won't even get a criminal record when the court process is finished.### Assistant: It depends. If you are caught with a personal amount of weed in Canada and it is a first offence, you can ask for a discharge or diversion. However if it is your second offence, you could face a maximum of 6 months in prison and a $10k fine, in addition to a criminal record. Having a drug offence on your record can definitely put you at risk of losing your job, and tainting opportunities for career growth. Also if you are going through a divorce, a drug offence on your record would definitely harm the probability of retaining custody over your children.

### Human: CMV: The Supreme Court has the most political power of any government entity of the United States.### Assistant: The president is the commander and chief of the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen. They can essentially "wage war" without anyone legally stopping them. Hell, he can launch nukes.### Human: But the Supreme Court can rule against their actions and the president is liable to be impeached. The Court's decisions essentially become law, something that even the president can't do. The closest they can do is issue a doctrine or bypass congressional approval with the United Nations.### Assistant: You can't unring a bell, or undetonate a nuke.### Human: Touche Δ### Assistant: Not to mention, AFAIK, the SCOTUS only deals with domestic politics. Surely the people dealing with the way we interact with the other 95% of the world should be considered to have more power.

### Human: I don't believe that the research of most English professors in research universities is valuable CMV### Assistant: >I don't see how themes of death in Hamlet, or the role of silence in Attic Greek tragedies, valuably informs our understanding of the universe, or gives us any 'practical' benefit. We don't study [the humanities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities) to understand computers; we study the humanities to understand ourselves. *(Spoiler: Philosophy is one of them.)*### Human: I want to prompt you to go a little further here, because I generally agree with OP on the topic and would like to hear a more complete perspective. I'm studying chemical engineering but have some background in philosophy as well, and I find that my classes in philosophy inform nearly every aspect of my life. Philosophy, more so than any other discipline, in my opinion, teaches people to be conscious of their own decisions, and to evaluate their choices and determine how they want to live. Further, philosophical research can help define political discussion and inform new laws that have a moral basis. I'd like to gain a better appreciation of literature, so I was hoping you would expand on your view some. How does academic research on literature expand our understanding of ourselves? I especially feel that so much of English research is fixated on such small details that it isn't really advancing its field much, let alone benefitting society in a meaningful way. I don't necessarily disagree with what you said but I'd like to hear more### Assistant: >so much of English research is fixated on such small details that it isn't really advancing its field much, let alone benefitting society in a meaningful way. I've always thought of literature as the study of the imagination -- the spark of creativity and the synthesis of new ideas, along with the resonance it can engender within us. The hard sciences are certainly useful in a practical sense, but they ignore *huge* swaths of human experience that literature can speak to. It may be a matter of personal preference, but if I want to understand *love*, and was offered an explanation of hormonal influences upon brain chemistry on one hand, and the courtship of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy on the other, I have no doubt that the latter offers greater understanding than the former. And that's worth studying, and thinking about, and contextualizing, and trying to understand. That certainly doesn't mean that there's no *bad scholarship* in the entirety of the discipline. But that's also true of every field. And it's also true that literary criticism moves in waves, and that as you spend more time in a particular cycle, there's fewer and fewer new and exciting things to say before the next big idea comes along and it all starts over again. That's fine -- it's part of creating the context in which that next big idea will be possible. And it's also worth thinking about in terms of expectations. If you consider science and engineering as disciplines as a whole, there are *infinitely more* small, incremental advances than there are bold game-changers, and that's fine, too. It just makes for a somewhat odd double-standard when you object to the same pace of advancement in the study of literature. Finally, there was an interesting [piece in Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/vivekranadive/2012/11/13/a-liberal-arts-degree-is-more-valuable-than-learning-any-trade/) a few months ago that's worth considering here. It was somewhat reductive, but it treated as axiomatic that *anything that can be outsourced or automated will be*; the humans who do that thing will always be in danger of obsolescence, and it's much easier to teach a machine to solve an equation than it is to teach it to understand *hope*. As somebody who runs a small company with his English degree and spends a lot of time thinking about stories and how we tell them, I find that notion to be resonant with my own experience. And I find that *I* have benefited -- both personally and professionally -- from my study of literature immensely. Yes, it's anecdotal -- but it's also good enough for me.### Human: ∆ Thanks for sharing. This is very informative. I guess my biggest impediment in seeing the value of studying English literature was my own expectations. I hadn't considered the extent to which the themes that English professors research might be about unpacking the nature of the themes themselves, rather than merely trying to find them in literature.### Assistant: Confirmed - 1 delta awarded to /u/cahpahkah

### Human: CMV: I think Shia Labouf's claim of "rape" is offensive to rape victims everywhere### Assistant: >He could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to. He also gave (some form of) explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased. The fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling. I mostly want to object to your claim here, which is that rape is a word that "describes...forced sex using violence or drugs." I think that in our more contemporary culture, especially influenced by feminist thought (controversial on reddit, I know), rape is not exclusively *forced* sex but sex without consent. I agree to an extent that the most predominant way to initiate sex without consent is through force, but force doesn't need to be violent or through the use of drugs: it could be through emotional manipulation, coercion, or deception. Feminists have tried to change legislation and improve rape education ("teach men not to rape") in order to change the perception that you have to be a thug lurking in dark alleys to be a rapist, but ultimately I think this has been controversial because after a certain point, how do you prove in certain cases that consent was not achieved? It also allows for rape to be unintentional ("how was I supposed to KNOW she didn't want it?") But, I think that we do use "rape" to refer to these unwanted instances of sexual contact where we had no control, and we were not "forced" in the way you are suggesting, even when we are not seeking justice where evidence would have to be collected. If that makes sense. That being said, the fact that Shia LaBeouf was raped during an art installation where he consented to submit to anything people did to him makes things tricky, I believe. It's pretty shitty that someone would choose to take advantage of him sexually and it makes perfect sense that he would feel violated (raped). I think you'd have to be a pretty fucked up person to attend such an art exhibit just to get your rocks off, but you're right that Shia could have stopped it if he really wanted to. Still, I think he has every right to feel uneasy about it, and to consider it "unwanted sex," which as I've demonstrated, seems to be what "rape" means nowadays. Could he get a rape conviction for these individuals? Probably not. But he's not trying, is he? tl;dr: I think a lot of people think that "rape" necessarily has to be something that is criminal, and that if you could never possibly get a rape conviction, it's not rape, but I think these people use it more as a word to mean "sex I didn't want" than anything else.### Human: Amramović could have stopped it too when she originally did her art exhibit in 1974, that doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted. How she was bleeding afterwards makes it pretty clear that she was.### Assistant: story?### Human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_0:_1974### Assistant: Thanks. Wow, I had no idea this was a form of art. I'll show myself out.

### Human: CMV:All states should adopt laws similar to the "Idaho Stop Law" with regards to people riding bikes### Assistant: You provided a lot of evidence why this is beneficial to cyclers. You haven't provided reasoning why everyone else benefits from this. The only logic is "it gets bicyclists out-of-the-way". Why can't bicyclist just follow the same rules as cars and everybody act in a safe manner?### Human: As I mentioned above, one of the reasons is that it's *actually safer* for people on bikes. The only study done on the subject showed a substantial 14.5% decrease in injuries to bicyclists directly related to the law. And as I mentioned, there is no study on traffic flow increase that I know of, but I'm hoping someone does one soon. It's well known to bike riders in Boise (especially cycling advocates) that traffic flow in the city is better than other cities, but anecdotal evidence is all we have for now.### Assistant: I live in Boise. You have to keep in mind that this is also a very bike friendly city relative to the US. While in the military, I lived in areas that are absolutely not conducive to riding bikes. They have no infrastructure for it. Also, because of this Boise drivers are much more aware and used to bikes riding all over the place. That's something that can take a lot of time for people to get used to. To be on the lookout for bikes. I've had friends come here that aren't used to it and they thought driving was scary with all the bikes. They weren't used to people coming down the side of the street and paying attention to them. Lastly, while it's not exactly related to this post here I figured I would add that a lot of people in Idaho and Boise are completely oblivious to this law. I've been yelled at several times for rolling through a stop sign when it was safe or for going through a red light when traffic was clear. The last thing I want to do is get hit by a car so I am keenly aware of my surroundings. However, many, maybe most of the drivers here are not aware that it is completely legal to roll through a stop sign or stop at a red light and then continue through if clear. Luckily, people are used to bikes here and are typically accommodating on the road.### Human: Plus it's Idaho so you guys only have like, 4 intersections in the whole state.### Assistant: Close. We have 7 and that one red light is a doozy.### Human: Ah yes, I think I know the one you're talking about. You guys are still cleaning up from the Great Potato Spill of '49 there, right?### Assistant: Lot of families didn't make it because of that potato spill. Such a tragedy. That light has helped prevent future famines though.

### Human: I believe that virgin shaming and the culture of it is more harmful than slut shaming. CMV### Assistant: There have been some good points made already, especially regarding the gendered nature of these insults. However, I think that there are two reasons why virgin shaming doesn't get the same attention that slut shaming does, and why slut shaming is far more harmful. First of all, virgin status can be lost. There's a certain perception that, once a woman is defined as a "slut", she's a slut forever. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with that one. If a 25-year-old virgin male started sleeping around, a couple of partners later and no one's going to be insulting him about his virginity. Secondly, and far more importantly, slut shaming carries the implicit threat of violence with it. Unfortunately, rape and date rape are extremely widespread crimes in western culture. Especially with date rape, the crime is seen as less heinous if the woman was somehow "asking for it" -- ie. is a "slut". There is no corresponding risk for men who have been labelled virgins, no matter how emotionally painful the label may be.### Human: >First of all, virgin status can be lost. There's a certain perception that, once a woman is defined as a "slut", she's a slut forever. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with that one. If a 25-year-old virgin male started sleeping around, a couple of partners later and no one's going to be insulting him about his virginity. Keep in mind the agency involved in these things. Maybe the guy wants to have sex but no one is interested in him. Meaning he has a very good chance of not being in control of "losing" his virginity. While, the girl who is a "slut" has the option and agency from day one to keep herself from gaining that label.### Assistant: >Meaning he has a very good chance of not being in control of "losing" his virginity. He can always pay for it. He is in control of it--but once you have sex you can't pay to become a virgin again. >While, the girl who is a "slut" has the option and agency from day one to keep herself from gaining that label. Approximately 1 in 6 women are raped. So this statement isn't always true.### Human: >He can always pay for it. He is in control of it--but once you have sex you can't pay to become a virgin again. He could also rape someone, but I assumed we were staying within the confines of the law and what rational people would do. >Approximately 1 in 6 women are raped. So this statement isn't always true. I am sure that 1 in 6 women are raped 20 times so that people think she has slept with too many people... I don't think any rational person would even COUNT a rape towards a womans number, much less would call her a slut because of a rape. I think you are really grasping at straws here.### Assistant: >He could also rape someone, but I assumed we were staying within the confines of the law and what rational people would do. Plenty of rational people pay for sex--and in Nevada it is legal... >I am sure that 1 in 6 women are raped 20 times so that people think she has slept with too many people... I don't understand what this means--just so you know, the average sexual partners for a woman is between 5 and 6. >I don't think any rational person would even COUNT a rape towards a womans number, much less would call her a slut because of a rape. People won't count forcible rape against a woman's number--but date rape is certainly used against a woman. Mostly because she must have been "asking for it" or "leading him on" or any of a multitude of other things people say to wave away non-violent rape. I think you are really grasping at straws here.### Human: > Nevada it is legal... BRB, off to Nevada. >I don't understand what this means--just so you know, the average sexual partners for a woman is between 5 and 6. It simply means that rape does not count towards whether a woman is a slut. Therefore, you bringing it up didn't really add or change anything. >Mostly because she must have been "asking for it" or "leading him on" or any of a multitude of other things people say to wave away non-violent rape. Which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Why are you changing the subject?### Assistant: It's not changing the subject... It is me pointing out that many women who are raped **do** have that rape counted towards being a slut. That was **exactly** the conversation we were having.### Human: >It is me pointing out that many women who are raped do have that rape counted towards being a slut. How? You said that if she is raped, she could then be considered a slut. This makes no sense.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: And you are operating by only considering the most extreme of idiots in the world. People will do irrational things... like women who cut off a mans penis. This is obviously an epidemic... right?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: No, you just don't understand the definition of slut shaming. This is demonstrated by you calling out instances of women being called a slut that are completely unrelated.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: My points have been based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut Now, main point I was responding to claims that a woman cannot CHANGE her label after becoming a slut. This means the "earned" title of sleeping with many men... which is avoidable and a choice (agency). Your point that : >Being called a slut out of anger or disgust is de facto slut shaming Is not following the flow of conversation.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Of course it is subjective. Your point? People are called "asshole" all day long, is there a definition for "asshole" or is it also subjective?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Both of them "shame" people by placing a negative label on a behavior you dislike. We have already discussed that both terms are subjective, which means... there is no incorrect way to use the term. So I don't really see the problem beyond "judging" people, which you will never abolish.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: The Coase theorem is not applicable to real life for negative externalities### Assistant: If I understand you correctly, this boils down to one simple objection to use of the theorem: It matters who you assign the property rights to. Do I understand you correctly on that? For example, the basic concept that regulation is not needed if the property rights are given to those affected by externalities, works well. In that situation, the mine would never be allowed to create the externality, not because it couldn't pay off a single resort, but because it couldn't possibly pay off the resort, and every other property owner and water drinker.### Human: > If I understand you correctly, this boils down to one simple objection to use of the theorem: It matters who you assign the property rights to. Do I understand you correctly on that? Yes, specifically that assigning property rights such that people have a right to cause negative externalities will result in an inefficient outcome. That's my main objection to it. Although I feel like some externalities where there is a wide swath of people who are affected (such as in the case of air pollution), the negotiating process is so cumbersome that regulation would work better. However, I think there have already been criticisms made against it to that tune.### Assistant: Assigning the rights to those affected isn't efficient either, though. First, it may give rise to a similar perverse incentive (and ability to blackmail) for self-victimization. Second, as soon as you have multiple property owners they become subject to a tragedy of the commons. What I actually think you're picking up on is a deeper issue with Coase, which is the assumption that all parties will negotiate in good faith.### Human: > Assigning the rights to those affected isn't efficient either, though. First, it may give rise to a similar perverse incentive (and ability to blackmail) for self-victimization. How so? By raising your "sensitivity" to harm, you can only raise the lower bound a possible price, not the upper bound. And it's very easy to just price yourself out of getting anything at all. > Second, as soon as you have multiple property owners they become subject to a tragedy of the commons. I agree, and I think this is another legitimate criticism of the Coase theorem. It's just that what I wanted to focus on was even for the ideal situation (only one externality causer and only one externality recipient) it still doesn't work.### Assistant: >How so? By raising your "sensitivity" to harm, you can only raise the lower bound a possible price, not the upper bound. And it's very easy to just price yourself out of getting anything at all. You don't necessarily have to *do* it, you just threaten it. This is fine when good faith is presumed (because everyone should be able to agree on a "fair" cost of the exernality), but without that presumption it's an issue. You're right in that the price is generally bounded by the value of the externality to the producer. However, at the extreme it's easier to say that in both cases the price is bounded by the value of the land and its use to both producer and consumer: a producer (with rights) can threaten to make the consumer's land uninhabitable and extract anything short of that. Conversely, a sufficiently self-victimizing consumer can (in theory) make it virtually impossible for a producer to operate: *any* form of noise, light, etc. becomes justification if someone is fragile enough. It's true that things can get nastier if the rights are given to the producer, but that doesn't mean giving them to the consumer works either. For example, consider a producer creating a noise issue - they gain $10k over not creating it - and a single rightsholder in a house next door, to whom the cost of the noise is (in the abstract) $2k. In Coase's view, they negotiate and the rightsholder will agree on a "fair" cost - he gets $2k for putting up with it, the producer gets $8k, everyone wins and the outcome is efficient. The problem is that the producer still has incentive to create the externality so long as the rightsholder demands anything short of the full surplus (setting aside questions of opportunity cost, capital etc.), so the rightsholder can demand $5k, $9k or $9,999 if he wants and it'll still be rational for the producer to comply. This isn't necessarily inefficient in theoretical terms (the surplus from any process which creates any externality is immediately assigned to whoever is affected), and it *does* correctly serve the goal of preventing cost-ineffective processes (i.e. if a process creates greater negative externality than surplus, it'll be quashed), but it clearly defeats the point Coase is trying to make. Even in a more "reasonable" setting, the rightsholder is heavily incentivized to exaggerate the impact of the externality, particularly when it's something like noise that is difficult to quantify. It's equally easy for them to say "look, right now it's $2k, but if I move my bedroom to your side of the house it'll be $7k, so you'd better give me $5k unless you want me to do that." Sure, they might "price themselves out," but they can likely dial back their demand and at worst lose out on a windfall. In any case, it still perverts Coase's ideal by bounding the payout at a (potentially unknown) value and turning negotiation into a game of chicken. >> Second, as soon as you have multiple property owners they become subject to a tragedy of the commons > I agree, and I think this is another legitimate criticism of the Coase theorem. It's just that what I wanted to focus on was even for the ideal situation (only one externality causer and only one externality recipient) it still doesn't work. Fair enough. I mostly just mentioned it because it's a much more pronounced effect in a many-to-one situation than a one-to-many situation: a single producer (rightsholder) centralizes the process in a way that lessens the impact of "holdouts," though some issues still arise.### Human: >The problem is that the producer still has incentive to create the externality so long as the rightsholder demands anything short of the full surplus (setting aside questions of opportunity cost, capital etc.), so the rightsholder can demand $5k, $9k or $9,999 if he wants and it'll still be rational for the producer to comply. This isn't necessarily inefficient in theoretical terms (the surplus from any process which creates any externality is immediately assigned to whoever is affected), and it does correctly serve the goal of preventing cost-ineffective processes (i.e. if a process creates greater negative externality than surplus, it'll be quashed), Totally follow you up until this point. >but it clearly defeats the point Coase is trying to make. Lost me here. How does it defeat the point? Coase's argument was that in a world where transaction costs are zero/low the social optimal outcomes are not dependent on the distribution of property rights; when this changes however the socially optimal outcomes then become more and more affected by the distribution of said property rights. The distribution of wealth changes, as you noted, but that is perfectly consistent with what Coase wrote, so what are you saying defeats the point? His whole point was that transactions coast do matter and affect the system under which people live.### Assistant: > Totally follow you up until this point. >> but it clearly defeats the point Coase is trying to make. > Lost me here. How does it defeat the point? Coase's argument was that in a world where transaction costs are zero/low the social optimal outcomes are not dependent on the distribution of property rights; when this changes however the socially optimal outcomes then become more and more affected by the distribution of said property rights. > The distribution of wealth changes, as you noted, but that is perfectly consistent with what Coase wrote, so what are you saying defeats the point? His whole point was that transactions coast do matter and affect the system under which people live. This may be a matter of the context where I encountered Coase, but the issue relates to the broad impact of such a system. (Separately, there are issues with how Coase approaches externalities themselves, but I'm not going to get into that.) He *did* note that transaction costs generally precluded this method of handling externalities, but the "theorem" itself is derived from his argument on a hypothetical where transaction costs are absent. In essence, he's arguing that transaction costs are the issue because things work when we take them away, and I'm arguing that without at least one other assumption (good faith or an alternative) things *don't* actually work when we take them away. His theory basically offers two outcomes when rights are given to those affected: 1. The producer pays the rightsholder commensurate to the *impact of the externality* or, if the impact is greater than the surplus, ceases to do whatever is creating the externality. 2. The producer pays the rightsholder commensurate to the *surplus generated*, or ceases to do whatever is creating the externality. These are very different, and it's unlikely for both to be socially optimal. In practice, the first looks pretty good while the second breaks down almost immediately. When the entire surplus created by the producer of any externality is assignedto the rightsholder, it becomes impossible for the producer to generate *any* surplus whatsoever through any method that creates any externality. We can resolve this by positing negotiation, but that tends to spiral off into specifics (opportunity, moving costs for the producer). Either way, the issue is that despite creating efficient *actions* Coase's method can't be said to create efficient *distribution* because it decouples the cost of the externality from transfer except as a gate for the externality's presence. A brief look at the real world shows this in a more intuitive way: the "socially optimal" outcome people are expecting is that a factory will (instead of being unilaterally shut down *or* having free rein to do whatever they want) end up reasonably compensating its neighbors for inconvenience caused by noise or pollution, unless its operations are so nasty that doing so would outweigh its profits. What would *actually* happen is that someone would move in beside a factory and promptly demand the factory either hand over the entirety of their profits to their new neighbor or be shut down. (The company won't actually end up handing over its entire surplus, but the amount is bounded by how much it would cost to pick up and move elsewhere rather than anything related to their surplus or the cost of the externality.) Needless to say, this does not look efficient. Coase's argues that the market can effectively regulate externalities organically regardless of who gets the property rights, because any externality that is cost-efficient (i.e. generates more surplus than its impact) will allow the creator to buy off those affected. (Again, there are some deeper issues with this, but they're not relevant here.) The problem here is that unless we assume good faith negotiation you get one of two dysfunctional outcomes: either producer-rightsholders are incentivized to threaten gratuitous harm to everyone around them in the hopes of a payoff, or affected-rightsholders are incentivized and empowered to capture the entire surplus of any producer who affects them in any way. The issues with the former are trivially obvious, but the issues with the latter aren't a cakewalk either. When one of Coase's biggest points was that (setting aside transactional costs) such things *could* self-regulate, it's hard to imagine him accepting a system which correctly prevents inefficient externalities but is otherwise completely dysfunctional as being "socially optimal." Thus, while such a system would be consistent with his description and efficient in some ways, it defeats his point by being inherently broken and unstable. To some degree this represents a manifestation of information issues ([see page 8 onwards here](http://environmental-economists.net/resources/Misinterpreting_the_Coase_Theorem.pdf)), but the specific issue I'm taking up is [here](http://encyclo.findlaw.com/0730book.pdf) (page 18 of the pdf).

### Human: CMV: Being Inside a lot is not a waste of life.### Assistant: Firstly its usually its a combination of not having enough energy or being in a down mood. However you seem to be doing just fine without. I personally noticed a huge improvement in energy, mood and productivity and creativity when my bike got stolen and I had to walk to the store for 45 minutes a day. second; the extrovert ideology that is being spread over everything. I totally agree that there is nothing wrong with being in a home comfort zone, but it is dangerous to be too comfortable (if you feel any anxiety doing seemingly normal things like talking to strangers, you are probably experiencing this problem). the "go outside and experience things" or "go out with us tonight" is usually other people trying to prevent this. And third; it usually tries to prevent is radicalization in people (people get strange opinions when being shut in for too long and don't see perspective of the outside). But the way you put it seems like you don't have this issue, but it might be unclear for anyone outside (like concerned family members). I was in your boat about a year ago, since then I started walking to gain energy, started dating to lose anxiety, and joined this subreddit to see different views. I feel like a better person, and would wish that onto others, thus caught myself saying "go outside more often" to others.### Human: Being introverted doesn't mean you stay inside, though. I have met extreme introverts who have traveled for years at a time.### Assistant: correct, but traveling is not directly correlated with being introverted or extroverted. traveling can be the loneliest or most social experience. i split up my point into two facts; 1. being outdoor improves mood and energy, and 2. socializing reduces anxiety. and the reason i called the second a extrovert ideology is because introverts usually have an aversion to socializing.### Human: > socializing reduces anxiety. Does it? To me that's the kind of things an extrovert would say because he feels anxious when not socializing for too long. If you feel better when socializing (for the sake of it), then you're probably not introvert.### Assistant: I am quite sure i am an introvert, but doing something that gets me really nervous puts the rest of people interactions into perspective. socializing drains me allot, but if i say no too many times it gets allot worse.

### Human: Desktops and laptops are not going away anytime soon, despite fewer sales. CMV.### Assistant: True, the PC isn't going to disappear tomorrow, the next day, next month, next year, or probably even in the next decade. But right now we're witnessing a technological revolution with smartphones, tablets, cloud computing, 3D printing, things like Google Glass, etc. Personally, I could not have envisioned something like my iPhone 5 ten years ago, given what the small device is capable of doing. Remember the ENIAC, [the monstrosity that is considered to be the first operational computer](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Two_women_operating_ENIAC.gif)? Technology has progressed so much since 1946 that I can't imagine that people could even fathom what computers would be capable of 40, 50, 60 years down the road. Hell, when the first PCs came out in the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of tech executives and computer industry people didn't think there would be a market for nearly everyone to own their own computer. They probably thought typewriters and those massive desktop calculators weren't going anywhere, either. They probably could not have imagined that the personal computer coupled with Internet and streaming services would bring about the decline of traditional television. How wrong they were. My point is, we don't really know what tomorrow holds. We don't really know what the defining consumer products of the 2020s or 2030s or 2040s will be, and what they will take the place of. But I do know that 40 years from now, people will probably look back at our clunky laptops and desktops and think, "god, how did they do anything with *that*?"### Human: Unless we make some headway in quantum computing, our current technological progression will soon grind to a halt. We are very quickly reaching the limitations of transistor technology (we can only make them so small). While quantum computing tests seem promising, we are still a long way away from any practical applications.### Assistant: This is very true. Silicone's lifespan, while still incredibly fast, will eventually come to a grinding halt unless we come up with something soon. Software is what needs to catch up-- the amount of processing power we have is incredible, but the coding is not optimal.### Human: >This is very true. Silicone's lifespan, while still incredibly fast, will eventually come to a grinding halt unless we come up with something soon. We have. [Optical computing.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing) It's still very much a concept, but it's being worked on. >quantum computing tests seem promising, we are still a long way away from any practical applications. Isn't quantum computing nothing more then code optimization and additional security features?### Assistant: >Isn't quantum computing nothing more then code optimization and additional security features? Far from it. Put very simply [quantum computing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer) replaces binary computations and transistors with [qubits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit) and the properties of photons or other subatomic particles. In doing so we can compute at the subatomic level rather than the molecular level where we currently are with doped silicon structures.### Human: That's not all it means! We can also use superposition and entanglement to reduce non-polynomial time computations into polynomial ones. This has a lot of implications for cryptography. It has been theorised that if any government secretly gets 10-20 years ahead of the publicly available research, all currently used methods of cryptography may already be useless.

### Human: CMV: Special snowflakes/ special snowflake culture isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, it is a sign of a tolerant and wealthy society.### Assistant: But it being a sign or side effect of something good has little to do with it being good itself. We can condemn people's entitlement without condemning the reason they are entitled. That may or may not lead to less entitlement without undoing the root cause.### Human: To clarify: what do you think they think they are being entitled about exactly? Also is it bad because of the entitlement or is it something else that I may have missed? From my perspective at least, they are just expressing themselves in a relatively harmless way.### Assistant: Soooo, at least in my experience, whenever people complain about special snowflakes, they complain about people who think they deserve better treatment than everyone else because they are so special.### Human: Okay, people who think that they deserve special treatment from everyone else because they are special for no reason are annoying, I don't think there's any denying that. But what exactly counts as better/ special treatment? From my perspective at least, most people dubbed special snowflakes are just expressing themselves in a different or unusual way and just asking people to respect that. Although there are obnoxious exceptions to the rule of course.### Assistant: Anything from entertaining their whims and thus spending more time with them than with normal people to them being always first in line because they will complain the most if they are not. I think you misunderstand the label of special snowflake. It doesn't really mean people who actually just are weird or special, it means people who think they are special when they are not. To give a cliché example, the soccer mom that asks the teacher to spend half their time with her kids because obviously her kids have so much potential and the other kids won't amount to anything meaningful anyway. Or " do you know who I am?"### Human: I think you're right that I've misunderstood the label of special snowflake a little, as before I though it was just an insult used on anyone who expressed themselves differently in a way that person didn't like or was unfamiliar with. In that context being a special snowflake would be bad and probably detrimental to the individual involved. As well a society itself to a degree. Congratulations, you've actually managed to change my view. Have a delta: ∆### Assistant: Don't feel bad about misunderstanding it. Like most terms people have started using it to just mean someone that they disagree with.

### Human: CMV: Bernie Sanders' healthcare plan is not realistic.### Assistant: Looks to me like you've misread some things. > The majority of the program is paid for by a 6.2% increase in the payroll tax, which alone would push many people into the realm of having marginal tax rates above 50%. On the website it clearly says the following: > A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium **paid by employers**. This means that the average persons payroll taxes wouldn't go up at all. This is a tax on the employer. A tax that the employer should easily be able to afford now that he doesn't have to provide coverage. > Sanders' estimates of savings are laughable. Not really. Considering we pay by far the most savings shouldn't be that hard to get. > > Sanders says his plan will cut healthcare spending by $6 trillion over 10 years but does not say how I'm not sure how many details you want on a page that is clearly meant to be an introduction to his plan. Having said that, it isn't hard to get a ballpark estimate on what we would save going to single payer. There are lots of other nations that have already done it, and there is over a decade of research into how it would work in the US. > Sanders covers dental, vision, drugs, long term care, and a host of other things that most countries provide limited or no coverage for. This plan would be vastly more generous than anything offered in Canada for instance. This comprehensiveness will be a cost control nightmare, especially for something as expensive as nursing home care, which the UK's national health service doesn't even cover except for the poor. I understand you don't like the idea of single payer and healthcare as a right, but that doesn't mean that it won't work. When it comes to long term care you're simply incorrect in some of your analysis. [Canada:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_care#Long-term_care_costs) > In Canada, facility-based long-term care is not publicly insured under the Canada Health Act in the same way as hospital and physician services. **Funding for LTC facilities is governed by the provinces and territories, which varies across the country in terms of the range of services offered and the cost coverage.[3]** Your implication that it was done privately is off. It's still funded by taxpayers, it is just governed locally instead of nationally. Are you certain you have a good grasp on the specifics of the plan? A lot of what you've taken from the page you linked is misinterpreted, and a lot more you just seem to dismiss as wrong because you are biased against the proposal in the first place. > My math for the 75% by the way is: > 52% top marignal rate + 6.2% payroll tax hike + 3.8% current top Medicare tax rate + 2.2% premium + 12.3% top California tax rate = 76.5%. If you account for deductibility of state income tax from ordinary federal income tax, it goes down to a 70.6% marginal rate. Oh come on. I'm going to stop here. For one, you added the 6.2% which is paid by **employers** as it says on the page. Two, you didn't apply any of the savings that the individual would get (which WAS factored in on Bernie's page, which means you purposely left it out) Three, you've completely ignored all deductions this person would get Four, you're pretending their entire income would be taxed at that rate, when it is ONLY the amount ABOVE the 10 *million* dollars that will be taxed at a higher rate.### Human: You seem well informed. Can you explain how much money this will cost everyone who is self employed/independent contractor?### Assistant: Yes, very simply. It would likely cost 6.2% of the income that comes from self employment, assuming that the employer's obligation is placed upon the self-employed person/independent contractor as is currently done with the employer's portion of the contribution to medicare/social security. HOWEVER, that also means that people who are self-employed or independent contractors would not have to pay for health insurance, which, if you're buying health insurance independently, is likely going to cost more than 6.2% of your income even for mediocre plans.### Human: > HOWEVER, that also means that people who are self-employed or independent contractors would not have to pay for health insurance, which, if you're buying health insurance independently, is likely going to cost more than 6.2% of your income even for mediocre plans. Not neccesarily. On healthcare.gov, I can get a plan for 145 a month(1.7k a year roughly). The break even point there is 27k a year, which is easy to beat. At 50k a year, I would only pay 3.4% of my income in health insurance.### Assistant: I'm curious, what does that plan cover (how high is the deductible, how high is the out of pocket maximum, etc.) and how much of that premium is subsidized through the affordable care act?### Human: It has a 6k a year deductible. OOP maximum is 6.8k. 0 subsidies from the ACA. Its great if you are fairly healthy.

### Human: CMV:people will only take climate change seriously once a lot of people die### Assistant: I'm a climate scientist, and I work in public outreach. I got this one. A lot of people dying isn't going to change anything, for the very simple reason that attribution is very difficult. Meaning that "climate change" isn't going to kill anyone on its own. What kills people is individual events. A heat wave. A flood. A tornado. Even if we can reasonably say that these things are *because* of climate change, people still won't see it that way. They don't see "climate change caused 1,000 deaths". They see "Hurricane Katrina caused 1,000 deaths." They see that a single heat wave killed a bunch of elderly people. Or a single flood killed a bunch of people on a Pacific Island. And that will never change. Climate change isn't a disaster. It makes existing disasters more likely. But each individual event is going to be viewed as an individual event, because people are very short-sighted. Climate change has *already* killed thousands of people, but the public doesn't see it that way, and they won't.### Human: What would it take for people to change their way?### Assistant: I genuinely don't know. My somber guess is that nothing will. I can tell you that it's not going to be a sudden change. It's not as though there's going to be the one big event that suddenly makes people go "Oh shit, we have to do something." That's just not going to happen. I think it's going to be a slow process over decades where being environmentally irresponsible becomes something that we basically shame people for, instead of just shrugging it off.### Human: Thanks for answering! I was wondering a few more things if you have time. Are there policies or anything governments can enact? What would need to happen if governments wanted to enact large scale environmental protection policies tomorrow? Would we have to cut out fossil fuel completely? Could there be an incentive program that makes polluting less reasonable than being environmentally safe?### Assistant: There are always policies that governments *could* enact, but then you get into a "what's reasonable" kind of thing, and that's for politicians to debate, not us. I have my personal opinions on those, but they're entirely personal. Science doesn't really have a position (or at least I think it shouldn't) on what the "right" thing to do is. I can tell you that the climate is changing, and is going to continue to change for the rest of your lifetime. At this point, were we to completely cease all carbon emissions tomorrow (which is all but impossible), the temperature would STILL continue to rise for another 20-30 years. That's just because the atmosphere is slow to respond to changes like that. It's too late to stop this. It's too late to turn it around. We *have* to find ways to live with it. We should absolutely keep working on ways to mitigate the change and stop the trend, but it's much too late to stop it from happening.### Human: Bummer :( thanks for answering my questions! :)

### Human: CMV: Building permits for small home projects are not much better than bribes to officials, and for the most part, don’t seem to be necessary for public safety### Assistant: As someone who grew up doing construction for my dad's company, permits definitely serve a purpose. I've worked on tons of remodels where previous owners were "handymen" or the like and do things that would blow your mind. A couple examples off the top of my head: 1. Guy wanted to open up the wall between his kitchen and living room. So he did. Never looked at plans or went to the county. He just cut an opening in a load bearing wall. Everything was sagging and at risk. When we put in a proper beam and jacked it up to height it went up 3 inches (!). Guy could have killed his family. 2. Guy wanted to move the shower and toilet around in his bathroom. Again, no plans or permits. He cuts into the foundation and SURPRISE, he cuts through the tension wires. Yeah now he has damaged his foundation and has to fix the tension wires to prevent something worse from happening. 3. This is more general, but since one of your examples is a deck, I have seen tons of homemade decks that were deathtraps or just bound to fail. One was holding up a trellis that was just held up with some L brackets. Deck was on cinderblocks on untamped ground, one side had sank about 4-5 inches into the dirt. It's awesome that it sounds like you know what you're doing, and great that your following the rules in your area. Now that's not to say that several fees are arbitrary and % of value fees are bullshit in my opinion. But really the permits are there to make sure you don't do something that could seriously injure yourself or others. I don't know that an insurance company would cover the liability if someone else got injured on an unpermited deck. I'd also point out that there is a second problem you have here. Inspectors not doing their fucking job. You can absolutely report them to their bosses and should. The guy who checked out your breaker box? Take pictures of what he signed off on and show it to his boss. I guarantee you he'll get in trouble. That stuff shouldn't fly, and could kill someone. Their job is to make sure the home meets code, and the code is what it is for a reason.### Human: I can appreciate that some people make stupid and dangerous decisions when home renovating, but why is the government involved in this at all? Is it the government's job to protect us from ourselves? In it's absence, couldn't we just get or expand our home insurance to cover problems created by renovations? In that case, if you wanted valid home insurance, you could get your home renovation permits through your insurance provider, and if they did a shitty job of providing them in a timely fashion, as all cities seem to, then the home owner could switch insurance companies.### Assistant: I'd say that there some instances in which the free market fails, and that yes, it's actually in our best interests for the government to protect us from ourselves. For example, I'm quite happy that in California, we have very strict codes for earthquake protection and stuff like that. Without the codes, and lots of people taking the cheap way out, a large percentage of houses could fall over in the next earthquake. While it's all good and fine to *say*, well, they made the choice of their own free will, so they should eat the consequences of having a pancaked house, in practice what would happen is that all the insurance companies would immediately go bankrupt and then fema would end up bailing everybody out (so that the tax payer ends up covering it instead). Furthermore, a lot of home renovations may affect other people rather than just the homeowner. e.g. it would be pretty shitty if the electricity on my street kept going out because some moron screwed up his electrical work at his house, or if a plumber, construction worker, yardworker, roofworker went to work on the house and electricuted himself while digging into the yard and hitting a not-buried-deep-enough line, fell through the not-up-to-vode roof, inhaled a bunch of asbestos, died in a fire because the fireproofing codes were ignored, etc.. Or if an earthquake hits, I'd rather your house was forced to be up to code rather than have it more likely to explode from an improperly installed gas furnace and spray non-code asbestos into the air, or catch on fire with the other 25% of the other people who also cheaped out on code, starting a firestorm and burning up the whole hillside, wiping out the neighborhood. I also want your water drainage up to code so that it doesn't erode the foundation of my house, etc.. You get the idea.### Human: > in practice what would happen is that all the insurance companies would immediately go bankrupt If you were running an home insurance company in California, would you really insure houses that were not structurally sound? >fema would end up bailing everybody out sort of like wall-street? this is classic subsidization of poor behavior. what happens when you subsidize something? you get more of it. > You get the idea. Yes, I get the idea. I just don't see why government is in the business when private enterprises are perfectly capable. Government tends to be incredibly inefficient because it doesn't need to compete. Government tends to breed corruption, as the OP in this thread implied. All the issues you brought up in the last paragraph are not beyond private insurance to handle. It's not unreasonable to assess the quality of your neighbour's gas-line/electric/asbestos/whatever, when insuring your house, and it's not unreasonable for a contractor to refuse to work on your house if you can't or won't insure it. Where I live there it is impossible to get any home improvements done, because there's so much bloody bureaucracy involved with all the permits needed, and the ridiculous wait times. It is an obvious tax-grab. Why can't a private insurance company issue a permit for my home renos? You can bet i'd get better service, because if i didn't, i'd just switch companies.### Assistant: > I just don't see why government is in the business when private enterprises are perfectly capable. Government tends to be incredibly inefficient because it doesn't need to compete. I don't think the free market will always make the correct choice. It is very easy to construct a scenario in which it fails. For example, the classic tragedy of the commons scenario where profits are gained by an individual or company and the costs borne by many (the free market will happily deplete a resource such as fish, while it takes regulation to prevent it). Or in the scenario you mentioned: > All the issues you brought up in the last paragraph are not beyond private insurance to handle. It's not unreasonable to assess the quality of your neighbour's gas-line/electric/asbestos/whatever, when insuring your house is the same problem - you build your shitty house not to code and your neighbors bear the cost in higher insurance. I would argue would be a complete failure of the free market. Say you can save $50k by not building your house to code but all 20 houses on your block have their insurance go up by $50 a month. It's to everybody's self interest to not build to code (hey, save $50k and only have to pay an extra $50 a month), but if all 20 houses on the block do it everybody's insurance goes up by $1000 a month. Plus the block is now a death trap and you and your kids and your stuff is in far more danger. I think it's totally reasonable to have codes and regulations to maintain a minimum level of safety for everybody. > Why can't a private insurance company issue a permit for my home renos? You can bet i'd get better service, because if i didn't, i'd just switch companies. Because a private insurance company has no authority over your neighbors, and what you build on your property may affect other people. e.g. you shouldn't be allowed to dump pollution out of a smokestack poking out of your house because it'll give the kids downwind of your house cancer. The private insurance company that you hire for your smokestack renovation has no incentive to care. The private insurance company hired by the family downwind of you can't force you to fix your smokestack; all they will do is raise that family's premiums.### Human: >the classic tragedy of the commons scenario I'm not sure this applies. The tragedy of the commons always involves property that is 'commonly owned', not property governed by private property rights or laws, as is the case with homes. > you build your shitty house not to code and your neighbors bear the cost in higher insurance In the extremely rare case that I am putting their property in significant danger, they could and should sue me. >I think it's totally reasonable to have codes and regulations to maintain a minimum level of safety for everybody. I agree. I just don't see why it has to be in the form of a tax grab with no consumer choice. Let the insurance companies do it. >you shouldn't be allowed to dump pollution out of a smokestack poking out of your house because it'll give the kids downwind of your house cancer. I agree. This is no different than if they dumped garbage in my yard. It's called trespass, and it's a violation of my property. >the private insurance company that you hire for your smokestack renovation has no incentive to care. No, they don't. But *you* do. If you are going to be taken to court by your neighbours for dumping soot, toxins, garbage, or whatever on their property, you can bet you'll have a pretty strong incentive to care. Look, you can come up with all these scenarios, which are frankly hard to believe, like a guy who has no mortgage, chooses to have no insurance on his largest material asset, and somehow can magically save $50,000 by hooking up a gas line 'not to code', and doesn't mind bearing the risk of his own death to do so, but check this out. What if someone bribes a government official? What if they bribe a government official to rubber stamp some renovation that's not safe or not thoroughly checked over? Is that at all a realistic possibility? Has it ever happened before? The reason this kind of corruption in government is rampant is because of the difference in consequence. For a government, having inspectors accept bribes means that you have to raise taxes to cover the loss of extra claims. For an insurance company however, the consequences of having inspectors that will rubber stamp anything are financial loss and the potential bankruptcy of the company. The owners have a strong financial motivation to make damn well sure that their inspectors do not accept bribes. They risk their livelyhood, their life's work, and financial ruin. Maybe I'm crazy but it seems a much more realistic proposition to me that my neighbours may bribe or cheat government officials in order to push unsafe renovations through, than the kind of scenerio you're talking about.

### Human: CMV: People should earn the right to have children.### Assistant: I agree with your premise, but I think the truly ethical sticky part is in regard to bodily autonomy. You shouldn't force people to do anything to their bodies they don't want to, unless they don't have the mental aptitude to make those decisions. As a consequentialist, I wouldn't consider this to be a concrete moral law, as there may be justifications for going against it. However, you're talking about the sort of policy that would endure permanently in human culture, which would negatively impact our ability to live fulfilling lives. I would tweak this by saying that the state should make temporary sterilization free, it should make a suitability check mandatory for new parents mandatory, it should make abortion legal, and should force the parents to give their child up for adoption if they fail their suitability check and do not abort. A lot of people have fears about the breakdown in the social order and in the incompetence of governments. I'd consider the former to be a large, but short term issue. As for the latter, I agree this maybe a concern now, but it does not discount the possibility of this approach being done properly in the future.### Human: > I would tweak this by saying that the state should make temporary sterilization free, Like provide universal healthcare, and include birth control in the coverage? That is a whole lot different than what OP is suggesting.### Assistant: >Like provide universal healthcare, and include birth control in the coverage? That's not necessarily what I'm advocating in my response. Instead, it is a means of enforcing a state driven population control policy without impacting bodily autonomy. In that sense, it is related to what was suggested in the OP in that it addresses the one big ethical issue I have with my understanding of his/her solution. That is, I assume the OP is suggesting that the temporary sterilization is made mandatory. As far as the concept of universal healthcare, I agree with the idea of having a degree of coverage for everyone that is paid by the state. For better service and additional procedures, I'm in favor of private insurance and/or out of pocket expenses. I do think that reproductive healthcare ought to be paid for by the government. However, in the USA at least, we can't afford to pay for everyone's healthcare because it's too expensive and we need that money to pay for our bloated military and gigantic national debt.### Human: 1. Regulating birth is never not going to affect body autonomy. Even if it was "free" and just heavily incentived it still affect autonomy as demonstrated by behavioral economics. Just like how states don't "have to" have a drinking age of 21. 2. Your suitability check has all the same pitfalls as any eugenics. Who decides the criteria? And don't say "the people already handling foster care" because that system is shite. 3. I hope your last sentence is sarcasm.### Assistant: >Regulating birth is never not going to affect body autonomy. Even if it was "free" and just heavily incentived it still affect autonomy as demonstrated by behavioral economics. Just like how states don't "have to" have a drinking age of 21. I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to undergo sterilization or abortions. You can still motivate people to do those things of their own will as you said. In that case, it doesn't go against bodily autonomy. >Your suitability check has all the same pitfalls as any eugenics. Who decides the criteria? And don't say "the people already handling foster care" because that system is shite. That relates to my original comment: "I agree this maybe a concern now, but it does not discount the possibility of this approach being done properly in the future." That is, I don't agree that it is impossible to come up with legitimate and useful criteria and I don't think that it's impossible for a government to administer these suitability checks fairly and effectively. While these sorts of activities were historically administered under the unscientific and unethical umbrella "Eugenics", that doesn't necessarily delegitimize the idea behind this approach. There is strong scientific support behind the idea that crappy parenting makes crappy citizens. We're not talking about superior or inferior genes here, but key factors that would inhibit people's ability to raise healthy children. >I hope your last sentence is sarcasm. A mix. Our national debt is a big issue, and I am not very comfortable with the idea of adding to our spending without addressing our debt AND military spending.### Human: 1. You completely glossed over my point about the perverse use of incentives and the illusion of choice. 2. This is one of the few cases where the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. "If people were angels ...." 3. National debt is not a bad thing. Have you never bought a bond before?### Assistant: >You completely glossed over my point about the perverse use of incentives and the illusion of choice. Maybe I didn't quite understand then. Could you elaborate? >This is one of the few cases where the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. "If people were angels ...." Maybe. I mean, it is a very intrusive way to control the population. Whoever makes those decisions will be very powerful. It may be difficult to ensure whoever is in that position of power will keep to the original intention of the policy instead of using it in a partisan or ideological way. However, I don't think it's impossible to have checks and balances on it and some simple and well supported guidelines to follow. For example, I'd say that you can calculate the annual cost of a child in particular regions of the world. If someone doesn't have enough income to cover those costs, or if they're in too much debt, they can't afford kids and shouldn't be allowed to have them. >National debt is not a bad thing. Have you never bought a bond before? National debt is fine as long as it's not too large. We have a very high debt to GDP ratio, [and interest payments are going take up the largest proportion of our national budget by 2026](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/19/interest-payments-could-become-one-of-the-federal-govts-biggest-line-items.html). Increasing spending is only going to make it worse.### Human: 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice A classic example is the drinking age in america. The states have the sole power to set the drinking age, but congress stipulates that to receive highway funding the state must set the age to 21, the state has to have the highway funds. 2. How do you propose we prevent those not allowed? Furthermore, all power corrupts inevitably, there is no perfect system to prevent it, and what you are describing is a Utopian Society which is impossible by definition. 3. You are ignoring the difference between capital and goods in your futures growth curve. Spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure increases future growth. Econ 101.### Assistant: >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice A classic example is the drinking age in america. The states have the sole power to set the drinking age, but congress stipulates that to receive highway funding the state must set the age to 21, the state has to have the highway funds. Or you can't enroll your child in public school if they're not vaccinated. I can see how you could give the impression of not infringing on bodily autonomy, while still forcing people to do things with their body they might not want to do. >How do you propose we prevent those not allowed? Furthermore, all power corrupts inevitably, there is no perfect system to prevent it, and what you are describing is a Utopian Society which is impossible by definition. I think the problem with corruption is the problem with giving people any kind of power over the lives of others. Libertarians seem to believe that the best way to handle this paradox is to limit government power altogether. Yet, when we do so, those who have economic power tend to shit all over those without economic power. It's a big problem, I honestly don't have all of the answers. In general though, I would argue that checks and balances are difficult to implement when they go against those who are already in power. However, just because they're difficult to implement doesn't mean they wouldn't work if we were allowed to implement them. As far as how we would keep the birth police from becoming tyrannical, I'd say that the policies need to be approved by a bunch of non-partisan expert boards and backed by scientific evidence derived from sources that have no conflict of interest. Make the policies difficult to change/add to, keep politicians away from the process, and use science as much as possible. As far as your Utopian comment, I disagree that a near perfect society is impossible. While I agree that humans may not be capable of creating such a society, I'm holding out hopes for a Super Intelligent AI overlord to figure it out for us. Super Intelligent AI will either hasten our extinction or prevent it. >You are ignoring the difference between capital and goods in your futures growth curve. Spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure increases future growth. Econ 101. I didn't make the forecast. It came from The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is an independent, non-profit, bipartisan public policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that addresses federal budget and fiscal issues. I did misspeak though, interest payments are the fastest growing part of our budget and it will become one of the largest buckets by 2026.### Human: The john Locke foundation is also "non-partisan". That means jack shit. As for your magical AI, someone programmed it. You cannot escape the faults of man, and no system can be perfect.### Assistant: Humans are pretty amazing and pretty horrible. The benefit of my magical AI is that it would be programmed by smart humans, who are more likely to have values more similar to mine (secular humanist) than traditionalists or social darwinists. Also, it would eventually be capable of programming itself beyond what was programmed by those smart humans. This means it could end up being really good or really bad for us, as I mentioned. However, in my view, super intelligent AI is the only plausible way for our species to continue to exist further than 5,000 years in the future.

### Human: CMV:I think there's a very positive correlation between vaccinations and autism.### Assistant: [Here's](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html) the discussion from the Centers for Disease Control on Autism and Vaccines. [Here's](http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf) a paper from the Journal of Pediatrics called "Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism" [Here's](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2899%2901239-8/fulltext) one from the Lancet called "Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association" Or, t[his](http://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=00099236&AN=32723461&h=ev1cEVJxppXcnlymUalaRsuo2g3bgqGR6r%2bHtr4utv8E0vkyq0nyGuFRmDPLokaFpj%2fOkhWw0JBz1v7JLE0Ukw%3d%3d&crl=c) one, from 'Clincial Pharmacology and Therapeutics, called "Vaccines and Autism: Evidence Does Not Support a Causal Association." I could keep going - there were dozens more - Google "link between autism and vaccines" and click on the "Scholarly Articles" link at the top. There has only been one study in a peer reviewed journal saying that there was a link, by Andrew Wakefield. This has since been thoroughly debunked, the journal printed a retraction, and it was discovered that Wakefield was in a position to profit from the hysteria. See [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy) Wikipedia article or many more. I am truly sorry about your sister. The problem is that vaccines are given throughout the first couple years of life and autism manifests itself in the first couple years of life. So, it appears that there is a connection, but it's just coincidence. Hope this is helpful.### Human: My view has been changed thanks to this and two other comments, thank you.### Assistant: Don't forget to award him the delta!### Human: How do I do that? I'm sorry I'm new to this sub### Assistant: There are instructions on the sidebar. No worries.### Human: Why do they never come back and delta? They always ask how then never follow through.

### Human: I believe justice should be blind, and so should juries. CMV### Assistant: How would the jury be able to see the subtle facial expressions of the defendant (and presumably the alleged victim too)? Surely seeing those expressions is helpful in determining who's lying and who's speaking the truth?### Human: I think this argument holds water when the defendant is actually testifying. But in many criminal cases, defendants never take the stand, so this aspect of watching defendants wouldn't be lost. Now you could say that juries also often watch the way defendants react in court, even when they aren't testifying, but I don't think this is a big thing to sacrifice to prevent racial bias, nor do I think that jury perceptions of a defendant who is simply sitting still for 8 hours a day for multiple days are something that actually have a lot of probative value.### Assistant: So this is going to be a defendant-only thing, not to apply to the alleged victim? And isn't it going to be even more important now to make sure any sympathetic-looking/sounding defendant takes the stand? If we create a system where the decision to take/avoid the stand gives jurors even more data, does that help matters? I'd hate to have a situation where I see the sympathetic "victim" but the defendant is just a number whom I have no human connection to.### Human: No, it would extend to the victim as well. They could take the stand but be out of view of the jury.### Assistant: And out of earshot as well? If so, you lose an awful lot more nuance. If not, I still get the race/class/sex from the voice alone.### Human: Yes, accounts could be given via written testimony and read aloud by the judge.### Assistant: Why even have a jury, then? Seems your preferred solution would be having a trial judge manage the evidence and send everything in the record to a panel of other judges (essentially what the jury is in your system) for a verdict.### Human: Because having a jury picked at random from the general population, in theory leaves the system less open to corruption and more accountable### Assistant: Doesn't it increase the odds of prejudiced persons serving, though? Further, there is zero accountability for jurors (other than an appeal for completely unreasonable results). If a juror wants to convict for any reason, they're free to vote that way if they want. There's no accountability in the process. However, it is less vulnerable to corruption, and there is greater sensitivity to the mores of the community.### Human: Well I don't think it necessarily increases the odds of a prejudiced persons serving in so much that it's equally likely to have a prejudiced judge than a prejudiced juror. And in fact as the jurors rotate any prejudice person can only do so much damage. You are correct about the accountability though.

### Human: CMV: I believe that the current dialogue for immigration and ethnic equality is intentionally self-righteous and is discouraging Whites from participating in a more authentic dialogue.### Assistant: >For instance, mentioning that cultural changes make people uncomfortable and require acclimation is absolutely unheard of in the immigration debate, much less that allowing one ethnic group to change the makeup of a state by more than 40% (California) may actually make even non-racist whites unhappy. I am a white born and raised California. First of all Mexican people lived in California for hundreds of years, longer than white people. It was part of Mexico until 1848 Second of all, if interacting and living with other cultures makes you "unhappy," that is the very definition of racism. Can you state any non-racist reason why the changing demographics of California would bother someone? >that a little amnesty would somehow lead to Mexicans taking over the state and implementing their own immigration laws was racist. Go back 100 years and people were saying that [Chinese] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act) and Japanese would "take over" California. Is California a provice of China today? No. 2nd and 3rd generations of Asian Americans have assimilated heavily into American culture. Why would Mexican immigrants be any different? > accuse white people of being immigrants They don't "accuse" white people of being immigrants. Pointing out that whites are also descended from immigrants is a perfectly valid argument. Irish were considered excotic and strange 150 years ago. 100 years ago Italians and Jews were considered outsiders who were going to take over America. Pointing out that the same tired arguments get brought up against every immigrant group only to be proven wrong is perfectly valid. Here is a quote from Benjamin Franklin in 1753 talking about how German immigrants were going to "take over" America: "Unless the Stream of their Importation could be turned... they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have, will not in my Opinion be able to preserve our Language, and even our Government will become precarious." As you can see it's exactly the kind of crap we we hear about Mexican immigrants today. I have yet to hear one person tell me why Meixcan immigrants are different than any other immigrant group. I didn't address the Zimmerman thing because I don't see what it has to do with immigration, but I don't see what is wrong with a 17 year old defending themselves against a creepy adult who follows them around their own neighborhood.### Human: > Second of all, if interacting and living with other cultures makes you "unhappy," that is the very definition of racism. Being uncomfortable in different situations does not make one racist. You are diluting the term. I hear this same debate in NYC, except it is black people complaining about the gentrification of the city in general, but especially of Brooklyn. The complaint is that white people move in and don't respect the "feel" of the neighborhood. They don't adjust to the culture, they bring their with them. I agree with you that there is no problem with this changing demographic of an area, but it isn't racist to be concerned by it either. >Go back 100 years and people were saying that Chinese[1] and Japanese would "take over" California. Is California a provice of China today? No. 2nd and 3rd generations of Asian Americans have assimilated heavily into American culture. Why would Mexican immigrants be any different? I think you are missing his point. It isn't so much that Mexicans are going to take over, but that the way the debates are phrased and discussed: opinions that doesn't accept it as perfectly fine is not valid, *especially if it comes from a white person.* >Here is a quote from Benjamin Franklin in 1753 talking about how German immigrants were going to "take over" Probably not a good point for you considering German was the second most widely spoken language in America until WWI when it was actively suppressed by the government. So effectively saying "well, look, it didn't happen then so we shouldn't worry now" overlooks the fact that we did worry about it and did do something about it. I'm not saying we should do anything about this, mind you, I just don't think you are making a very strong case *with that point.* >I didn't address the Zimmerman thing because I don't see what it has to do with immigration, but I don't see what is wrong with a 17 year old defending themselves against a creepy adult who follows them around their own neighborhood. I think you are again missing the point. He isn't talking solely about immigration, but the debate on ethnicity itself. The Zimmerman case was terribly and unfairly represented in the media. As he pointed out, they used pictures of Trayvon which were three years old (making him look like a child, when he was really a young adult) and one media outlet manipulated the 911 tapes to make it sound like Zimmerman was racist.### Assistant: >I think you are missing his point. It isn't so much that Mexicans are going to take over, but that the way the debates are phrased and discussed: opinions that doesn't accept it as perfectly fine is not valid, especially if it comes from a white person. How are current day debates any different from the same debates from the past? Would you accept that 100 year old fears about how wops and Jews were going to take over America are racist? If so, how are current day debates any different?### Human: Are the debates about gentrification in NYC racist then too?### Assistant: You dodged the question. In both debates there is one group with a lot of money and power, and one group with less. In the gentrification debates, the group without money and power is complaining about a group using money to force them to move. So I don't view them as equivalent.### Human: This is the second time you tried to avoid this. Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about which of your own views may be based on bias.

### Human: Disliking Skyler White (Breaking Bad) is not a feminist issue. CMV### Assistant: You know, based on your title, I thought I would agree with you. But I don't. The genius of Breaking Bad is that it doesn't have *any* likable characters. Every single person is their very own special-snowflake variety of asshole. The more telling thing, I think, is that you seem not to be an equal-opportunity disliker. Walt changes quickly from a desperate cancer victim to someone willing to kill *all of the people* to keep his meth business going. He's not a very sympathetic character, and I don't think the writers intend for you to like him. So, why *do* you like Walt but not Skyler? You haven't really elaborated much on that.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Walt JR is an entitled, unobservant, ungrateful, selfish teenager, and in the most recent episode **[SPOILER]** Hank was quite happy to get Jessie killed to help take Walt down, because he was a 'lying, junkie meth dealer'. I'm of the opinion that Badger and Skinny P are actually the heroes of the show, and will end up in a spin-off series where they somehow find all of Walt's money and move into an apartment with Joey from friends, Masuka from Dexter and George Takei, writing and starring in their own fictional sci-fi tv show.### Human: Why do you think Walt jr is entitled, ungrateful and selfish?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: What? > entitled, unobservant, ungrateful, selfish **teenager** He is not. And Walt JR is a spoiled suburban brat.### Assistant: Can you give examples of why you think he is a spoiled brat?

### Human: CMV: Nationalism is inherently dangerous, Patriotism is inherently stupid, and you can be proud of your country without them.### Assistant: To associate yourself with Newton and Darwin is exactly nationalism. What do **you** have to be proud of with regard to their accomplishments except the fact that you happen to be from the same country? You even phrase it as such. "I am proud of many things WE have done." You didn't do any of that stuff. Other people did. And yet you refer to yourselves collectively as "we."### Human: You seem to have missed an entire part of that paragraph where I talked about people from other countries and the pride in "we" as humans### Assistant: I didn't miss it. I took it directly from this line right here: > I am British and am proud of many things we have done. Without nationalism, there is no what "we" have done in this context. There's only what YOU have done. As soon as you take any sort of pride in what other British people have done, that's nationalism. You can be proud of the human species, but that doesn't really make any more sense, does it? Just because Darwin and I are both human, I'm supposed to have a sense of pride in what he accomplished?### Human: >As soon as you take any sort of pride in what other British people have done, that's nationalism. This just isn't true. If you take any pride BECAUSE THEY ARE BRITISH, that's nationalism. I specifically said that it is pride in human accomplishment. >Just because Darwin and I are both human, I'm supposed to have a sense of pride in what he accomplished? No you aren't MEANT to, that's my entire point. People find pride in different things and I find it in the fact that humans have done and found these things. Part of what pride is is an admiration for the qualities of other human beings. I don't personally think we need to tie that to members of a certain part of the world. When I said pride in my country I meant more the actions of the state. We give a lot of money to foreign aid for example and I am glad that we do, but that doesn't mean I am pleased or even support the current government. I am very critical of the current political class and situation, but that doesn't mean I support them. Here's an extreme example to show it isn't nationalism: Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to ban surgery on living animals for research and experimentation. I am proud that they had the incentive to do that, but I am in no way in support of the Nazi Party, and there isn't a single scrap of me that feels any nationalism or patriotism for them.### Assistant: > I am proud that they had the incentive to do that, but I am in no way in support of the Nazi Party, and there isn't a single scrap of me that feels any nationalism or patriotism for them. Well, you aren't German so that wouldn't make any sense. But that aside, nationalism is nothing more than having a sense of identity with the people around you. My point is that it's not a bad thing. It's just natural to form up "teams" in life, and your team is the people you grew up with. You live in a place with a culture that ALLOWED people like Darwin to do the things he did, as opposed to somewhere that would have stifled his research. You **should** be proud of that. I'm proud that I'm American, and that I live in a place that has fostered so much innovation over the last 100 years, even though I'm not the one who personally created Intel. Your original point speaks more to the fact that nationalism and patriotism can be taken TOO FAR, and that's completely true. There can be too much of a good thing, and people can stretch it into something harmful, and that's what you get in the case of a war.### Human: >You live in a place with a culture that ALLOWED people like Darwin to do the things he did, as opposed to somewhere that would have stifled his research. You should be proud of that. Should Nazis be proud of Nazi Germany because they allowed massive improvements in rocket science and film technology? I can't say I agree with what you're saying here :/### Assistant: Yeah, I would say Germany should take pride in those aspects of their history, sure. To say that the Nazis contributed nothing positive to the world is just false. You don't have to be 100% supportive of everything your country has ever done to still be proud of other things.### Human: Wellp. I was in agreement with you until that.### Assistant: Again, you don't have to be a Nazi or wish they were still around to acknowledge that trying to get people to stop smoking was a good idea.

### Human: Raising the minimum wage by the desired 40% is bad for most people CMV### Assistant: It's not quite as simple as "reducing [your] salary by 40%". First off, raising the minimum wage won't change the fact that a lot of the labor costs of your goods have been outsourced overseas, or come from under-the-table work that pays far less than the minimum wage. And it won't change the fact that Amazon, Target and Walmart make a lot of their profit by ruthlessly streamlining the supply chain. It will increase retail labor costs. This won't affect stores like Costco or Trader Joe's, who already pay their employees very well, as much as it will affect stores like Walmart or Amazon. The open question is how much of a bump you would see in retail prices vs. how much of a hit stores would take to their record-setting profits in order to remain competitive. And another open question is how much upward pressure there would be on wages in general, if simply offering a living wage weren't enough to attract skilled workers to a business. I think the main thing an increase in minimum wage would signal is that workers still have some political power. And that might have far reaching consequences that are worth a little bump in the cost of living.### Human: >The open question is how much of a bump you would see in retail prices vs. how much of a hit stores would take to their record-setting profits in order to remain competitive. Great point. I think you can see this fairly easy when you look at the list of billionaires and see something like 5-8 different Waltons on there. Everyone knows Walmarts business practices (cheap items, cheap labor, understaffed stores), all for the stockholders, and is pretty detached from inflation.### Assistant: Those people aren't impacted by any cost of living increase. It's the people who have 2 kids and aren't below the poverty line, but easily could be if groceries/gas/rent were to increase in cost faster than normal raises.### Human: Increase the minimum wage, harm the people you mention above. Don't increase the minimum wage, allow the continued harm of minimum wage employees. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.### Assistant: As OP said in the post, they're not against a wage increase but that 40% is too much.### Human: For which areas? OP doesn't take into account that 10 dollars in certain areas is still shitty while in others it is acceptable.### Assistant: But in those areas the minimum is already high. The minimum wage should, at best, be a regional decision. $10/hr may not be a livable wage in NYC, but in Little Rock Arkansas, it would be more than enough. A lot of places already have much lower wages than normal, and having this kind of increase to the total population wages will serve to more dramatically impact the purchasing power in these areas.### Human: Problem is a lot of jackass states would never raise it. Fed would have to force it via cost of living formula.

### Human: CMV: If you want a health care system where the government isn't paying for care for high-risk individuals via tax dollars, you can't have more than 2 out of 3: (1) no individual mandate, (2) adequate coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and (3) a functioning health insurance market.### Assistant: You said "adequate coverage" for people with pre-existing coverage, but coverage is not the problem. The cost is. People with pre-existing conditions, technically, should pay substantially more for coverage. That is by definition what insurance would do in a free system. Thus, any system that artificially reduces the price for certain people must be spread to others via other means - either taxation, or raising rates to others (including via forcing more to join). I would argue that this is no longer "a functioning health insurance market" at all.### Human: The problem with that approach is that just about anything can be considered a pre-existing condition. Had cancer before? It's a pre-existing condition when you get it somewhere else. Sprain your ankle? Well, you sprained the same one when you were 10, so it's a pre-existing condition. Heck, I donated a kidney to my dad in 2000... that's now a pre-existing condition in me if I ever have any kidney, blood pressure, etc issues... even though the transplant wound up saving medicare money on his end vs unending dialysis and the associated medical problems and costs.### Assistant: > he problem with that approach is that just about anything can be considered a pre-existing condition. But one needs to consider why they would. What benefit would they have to do such a thing? The goal of a company is to supply a product so that revenue is maximized. This maximization happens when the marginal cost of a good/service equals the marginal cost. If companies did what you described they would be foregoing a huge segment of the market that they could have profitably provided services to. >Had cancer before? It's a pre-existing condition when you get it somewhere else. Sprain your ankle? Well, you sprained the same one when you were 10, so it's a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies have actuarial tables to measure risk empirically. When there are barriers to entry in a market along with forced consumption sure there is likely to be problem, but those are artificial problem that are imposed on the market (in this case by government) not something that is a defacto feature for any given case, as the companies are trying to provide as much service up to the point it is no longer profitable. >Heck, I donated a kidney to my dad in 2000... that's now a pre-existing condition in me if I ever have any kidney, blood pressure, etc issues... even though the transplant wound up saving medicare money on his end vs unending dialysis and the associated medical problems and costs. I think that was very admirable of you, I truly do. I believe I would do the same thing, but sadly not everyone would. I am not a doctor but I expect that doing so did change the risk potential associated with you. Your doing so was still warranted financially given what you describe, however surely you don't disagree that it altered your individual situation? Yes, it was financially (and filially) best in aggravate, but that isn't a consideration, unless you where already insured in which case depending on the insurance they have a contractual obligation to you.### Human: A company can still accept insurance fees and yet deny coverage for an expensive treatment if they can argue it is a pre-existing condition. If they limit such a practice to the most expensive (e.g. not profitable) customers, they would be able to drive their own costs down and be more competitive than their competition.### Assistant: > A company can still accept insurance fees and yet deny coverage for an expensive treatment if they can argue it is a pre-existing condition. Can you give an example of what you are talking about? I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. In the post I you are responding to I specifically noted that trying to deny coverage for something someone has been paying into to protect for such a potential eventuality means that they have a contractual obligation. My understanding is that has happened but that is a legal issue, not what we are talking about here. Or are you saying They won't insure for a particular thing put are willing to sell other policies? That makes complete sense and doesn't contradict anything I have said. There are many types of insurance. Just because one might be ineligible for one does not necessarily mean there isn't sense for them to be provided coverage for something else. >If they limit such a practice to the most expensive (e.g. not profitable) customers, they would be able to drive their own costs down and be more competitive than their competition. Yes. It seems like you are trying to disagree with me, however what you are saying doesn't contradict anything I have said. Can you clarify what you disagree with?

### Human: I don't believe any country that prohibits free egress has the right to its own sovereignty. CMV### Assistant: I'm about to start writing a legal thesis on pretty much this exact issue. I'll try not to get technical. Are you are speaking in a legal or a moral sense? It seems more likely that you mean morally, but the question is a legal one - DO states lose their sovereignty as a matter of legal fact? Legally, the answer is pretty much no. States always retain their sovereignty, but may be subject to limitations, at least by the UN Security Council. The question is really whether states SHOULD lose their sovereignty. There are people who agree with you, though. Obviously, morally, a state should not prohibit free egress, and personally I would expand this idea to cover serious breaches of human rights too - I'm talking genocide, crimes against humanity, that sort of thing. What even is 'sovereignty' for the question? Probably the right to be free from intervention by other states, and for a state to do as it pleases within its own border. Already, you see the paradox - sovereignty means that a state can do anything in its own borders, so how can it 'lose' its sovereignty due to something it does in its own borders? Even when we intervene in genocide or crimes against humanity, there is no suggestion that the state involved has 'lost' its sovereignty - only that it has committed an 'international crime' which must be put an end to. So by 'losing sovereignty' do you mean that other states can intervene to enforce human rights? This can, and does happen. Yugoslavia is a good example - when NATO and the UN went in to stop the conflict and genocide, their use of force was not directly authorised by the UN Security Council, which is the only body capable of authorising international armed conflict. Despite the UNSC's lack of direct approval, the member states of NATO decided that the conflict was so bad that they had to intervene, and used some quite fictitious legal reasoning to justify themselves. The UK actually said that they were intervening for humanitarian reasons, and used that as a legal justification, but that didn't really fly. This sort of thing really only happens when it affects other states, though, by posing a threat to the security of the region. North Korea's nuclear program does that, hence why we all get very worked up about it, but their domestic policies only affect them internally. The UN has also created a report suggesting roughly what you are saying, but it really isn't law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect The issue is, though, how on earth would you judge this? What constitutes a violation of human rights bad enough that a state 'loses' its sovereignty? If North Korea has no right to sovereignty, then does Syria lose its sovereignty too? Who on earth decides this or enforces it? The UN can't - it's based on absolute equality of sovereign states. Even if this were possible, just imagine it - NATO decides that North Korea is bad, and has lost its sovereignty, so they go in, get rid of the government, and set a new one up. Well, that's not worked so well in the past. Yes, I really like to think it would be better if we did do this, but it sets a precedent that NATO can also just say Syria has lost its sovereignty, and invade them too. Hang on a minute, China severely limits its people's right to freedom of expression, they've lost their sovereignty too! What if the rest of the world turn round and say 'hang on, the USA has lost its sovereignty because they keep conducting wars of aggression and also spy on literally everyone'? You've got World War 3. I'm not saying that intervention in North Korea would actually cause World War 3, it's just that sovereignty exists for a reason, and that it promotes peace far more than it authorises terrible conduct.### Human: > you see the paradox - sovereignty means that a state can do anything in its own borders, so how can it 'lose' its sovereignty due to something it does in its own borders? There's no need for *unlimited* sovereignty. Actually, there is no place for *unlimited* sovereignty. In modern societies, we enjoy a certain degree of freedom. "I can do whatever I want in my own home". Not true. There are limits, but we call ourselves free, nonetheless.### Assistant: Sovereignty is slightly different - states are, at a basic level, completely unlimited in their acts. They may be limited by socio-political factors such as popular opinion or economic factors like availability of resources but legally they are allowed to do anything. Theoretically, the only legal obligations binding them are those that they consent to. So a state is only bound not to commit genocide because states have agreed that it is unlawful, and thus sanctions, countermeasures or other interventions by outside forces are allowed in response to it. Their sovereignty is intact because they have agreed to be bound by the obligation not to commit genocide. So the question is whether the freedom to leave ones country is an obligation North Korea has accepted to be bound by, and that's a technical legal question, and one I couldn't convincingly argue without doing research. Edit: I notice your point is actually more what *should* be. I agree. It's not moral for state sovereignty to allow them to commit atrocities, but it's the legal reality, unfortunately. This is why all international relations and law is consent-based.### Human: >Theoretically, the only legal obligations binding them are those that they consent to What about [jus cogens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_cogens)?### Assistant: *jus cogens* is fascinating, and no one is really sure where they actually come from, despite being potentially one of the most important parts of IL. It depends 100% on who you talk to as to whether they are formed out of positivist law, or natural law. Natural law is one thing, but really it's a very hard one to justify these days, without ending up referencing a higher power of some sort. You can found it in utilitarianism to an extent, but that doesn't necessarily give it any binding force. If you believe that morality and 'justice' exist outside of humanity, and that there is some discoverable moral code inherent in consciousness, then yes, *jus cogens* bind states without their consent. I'm aware I'm not making a strong case for natural law, but it is a valid viewpoint, and not one that I'm remotely hostile to. It's just very hard to really justify. The fact that *jus cogens* are non-derogable is evidence for this idea - it is considered impermissible for a state to commit genocide. Really, though, *jus cogens* are only mentioned sporadically in positive law (though they definitely exist - Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties) and they don't really have that much force. They are sometimes brought up at the International Court of Justice, but a case has never been settled by recourse to them. Furthermore, they do emerge over time out of state practice and *opinio juris*, much like customary international law. Genocide, for instance, actually wasn't really known as a concept even at the start of the Nuremberg Trials. The illegality of aggression was definitely also created around that time. Their evolutive nature does suggest that they aren't rooted in natural law. I'm more of the opinion that *jus cogens* are an integral part of the general system of law created post-WW2 and that they are definitely a separate category, non-derogable and universally binding, but I think that's because they have been created by humanity, and more specifically by states. It's the view of a majority of academics in the field, but by no means all.

### Human: I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV### Assistant: **Point 1:** The people who work at fast food restaurants know that their jobs suck; if alternatives were accessible to them, they'd already be there. $7.25 per hour, measly as it is, is still better than nothing. **Point 2:** Many things are "inherently terrible for one's health," in that if you misuse them (or are just unlucky) they can injure, sicken, or even kill you. That doesn't mean that we can or should ban them. Over 30 thousand people will die in the U.S. this year due to auto accidents; would you ban cars?### Human: actually, I don't think people would jump to alternatives. As a 17 year old working a fast food job for minimum wage, which happens to be next to 3 other fast food restaurants, I interact with a lot of employees, most of whom are around 25. Most of them are not in college, nor do they plan on going to one. Last year I got a gardening job that paid me about $250.00 per week. I make much less on the fast food place, but its easier for me. I even told people about the job I had before, which by the way, still has positions open. Why aren't they jumping to work there? There is no motivation. There is no incentive. These people are on food stamps, welfare, alimony, and sitting on debt. They've been doing this for years, and they don't plan on changing any time soon. I don't think our country has a culture of motivation, most people give up in high school trying to get ahead, and this leads to a case of working to get by, not working to get ahead.### Assistant: That sure is a nice anecdote. [As of May 2012](http://www.bls.gov/oes/), there are 3,378,030 people employed as "Fast Food and Counter Workers." Please point to the 3.4 million open jobs available to these people (taking into account [the 12.5 million people](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm) currently *already* unemployed and seeking jobs).### Human: Your rebuttal does not address the point he was making, which is that *even if* jobs are available in other sectors, many fast-food employees don't care to change jobs. He wasn't saying that *there are* jobs available.### Assistant: He's a teenager relating a single anecdotal experience from his part-time job to try and argue that everyone in fast food is there because they're lazy, with a hefty dose of scorn for adults trying to support themselves and their families on the income that he probably uses for things other than basic survival. He told people about a gardening job and they weren't interested, so he concluded that people in fast food aren't there because there are no alternatives, but because there are alternatives and they're just not interested. It couldn't possibly be because: * They're not capable of that level of physical labor. * The increase in pay isn't commensurate with the increase in effort required. * They don't have access to the transportation they'd need to get there (especially if it's a job that requires visiting multiple sites, which it probably is). * The job wouldn't provide enough hours compared to what they're working now. * The job would require too many hours compared to what they're working now (e.g., they have to schedule around another obligation; or they can't work more than a certain amount of hours without losing government health benefits). *The guy himself* took the fast food job over the gardening job, and yet *his* choice is a sensible one, while everyone else is just lazy. That's not a "point," that's a narrow, personal observation from someone with a relatively small amount of life experience.

### Human: CMV: Reddit banning subreddits such as /r/Lolicons and /r/Pomf is unjust.### Assistant: Reddit is trying to make the website profitable. The problem is, some advertisers won't want to advertise on websites that host questionable content. This is because they don't want their content to be seen alongside something that is considered offensive. From a business perspective, it's 100% just. They upset maybe 20K-30K users that visited this site, and in return improve their marketability. If they lose 1% of their userbase because of this change, but gain 30% more advertisers, it's still worth it for them from a profitability standpoint. While you may be right that it could be considered incorrect to consider loli "hateful", it's still something Reddit wants to "clean up" in order to make the website more appealing to advertisers. If you don't like it, I'd recommend other sites for loli, Reddit is at least still good for some things like discussing games and whatnot. But if you don't support the change, I recommend turning on adblock and not buying reddit gold. Reddit isn't about the users anymore, it's about the money.### Human: Explain srs then?### Assistant: That's what I don't get. If you want to make something look good why would you want a semi large community dedicated to pointing out the worst stuff on the site?### Human: Because srs can cause a stink in the media.### Assistant: I'm sure Reddit could survive SRS. I mean what are they even going to tell the media? Reddit are actively removing the worst content anyway.

### Human: CMV: I wipe standing up.### Assistant: I used to wipe standing up. But, a couple years ago, I started sitting down, and I haven't looked back. When you stand up, the poop gets smeared a little bit between your butt cheeks. This makes it harder to clean up. Also, when you sit, you can use the seat to spread your butt cheeks apart. This makes it easier to wipe everything up. By changing the way I wipe, I was able to get cleaner, faster. In my opinion, sitting is the superior method.### Human: Now comes my question. Do you wipe from behind or from between your legs? Because I think I recently found out that most people do that from behind, while I'm accessing my butt hole from between my legs.### Assistant: I can back you up on the "between-the-legs" method. Just feels natural. No sacrifice of dexterity, convenient for angling the wrist the right way, and just a flick of the wrist allows you to quickly visually assess the state of the toilet paper. I know a who wipes from the side, and he literally takes the TP back out from under him to check, then throws it in the bowl between his legs. Those are so many unnecessary motions, no to mention that bringing poopy-paper out of the toilet bowl only to throw it back in is absurd.### Human: Curious: are you male or female? As a male, I can't help but feel I would get shit all over my balls or have my balls sit on my wrist as I find my asshole. That's why I go in the side.### Assistant: Female can't wipe back to front either. Everyone should just always wipe front to back for their own health really.### Human: No no. They're talking about where the wrist is, not the motion of wiping. You can wipe f->b or b->f regardless of whether you are a between the legged or behind the backer.### Assistant: Ahhh that makes more sense!

### Human: CMV: We should try to actively "polinate" our solar system with microbial life### Assistant: What about the native life that we accidentally wipe out by introducing Earth's microbes?### Human: This is a good point, however it's not nearly enough to change my view First, even **if** alien life existed and **if** by introducing our microbes into their world they would all go extinct, I would still support such an action, as the benefits of ensuring the continuation of life are far more important than saving a tiny amount of bacterial life (comparatively speaking). Even if we knew that we will 100% certainly kill all bacterial life outside in the universe if we replace it with ours, I would still support it. The thing is, this is just a hypothetical. The equation as it stands now is either a) seed every planet and every moon in the solar system with earth bacteria and maybe, if that moon also happens to have life we never detected and if we are really unlucky, our microbes will destroy theirs, or b) don't do anything for fear of contaminating something as far as we know doesn't exist, and run the risk of having life completely gone from the entire universe Based on what we know, the second one is a far better choice### Assistant: Don't forget that our microbes could potentially kill larger life on those planets as well. Don't think microbes for microbes; think microbes for all life. Microbes can cause disease in larger animals. Should we really be messing with things we know almost nothing about? If you want to send our microbes to places we are reasonable sure there is no existing life, sure. However, sending our microbes as far as we possibly can is irresponsible because we don't know enough about the environment we're sending them to to make a reasonable prediction of the outcome.### Human: Larger animals require ecosystems. It would be almost impossible to fuck up so badly we missed that. Skip that planet.### Assistant: What if it was subterranean life? or ocean life? Here, ocean could mean a body of water or even a body of some other fluid (example: lakes of liquid methane on Titan). EDIT: and how big does something have to be to be "worthy" of saving? Penicillin and yeast are small, but wonderful.### Human: If it we found water on another planet, we'd probably search for life there instead of *putting* life there. But, I agree with your edit.

### Human: CMV: Schools should teach economics from a young age### Assistant: Why would you want that view changed ? It is a perfectly reasonable opinion. Teaching economics will result in having to debate less leftists too. Great stuff.### Human: Unless you want to be providing a one sided class to try to indoctrinate children to the right you will also need to teach Keynesian and Marxist economics.### Assistant: Virtually no economists are marxists, I would rather not have that garbage taught in school. Marxism is irrelevant to modern economics### Human: There is a pretty decent amount, decent enough to teach about it along with the other forms of economic theory. Not wanting a certain school taught because you disagree with it is pretty dodgy since it is not an objective topic.### Assistant: There isn't "a decent amount". I literally can't think of a single contribution Marx made that exists in some form in modern economics >since it is not an objective topic. Positive economics is, which is what you learn in class. Have you ever even taken economics yourself? >Not wanting a certain school taught because you disagree with it The consensus disagrees with it. Are you one of those people who think creationism should be taught in biology class as well?

### Human: CMV: That pre-orders and season passes are leading to poorer quality games### Assistant: Let me make sure I understand your position: 1. Publishers should not hype games prior to their release. 2. Gamers should not buy games on the day that they are released. 3. If more of #2 occurred, then less of #1 would occur. 4. This would result in publishers spending more time to polish games for release. If this is correct, the simple flaw in this logic is that publishers have no incentive to polish games that will not sell. Therefore, if fewer gamers buy on day 1, the games will be less profitable and less development dollars will be available.### Human: 1. I have a marketing degree, so I absolutely believe they should hype their games, my point is that they are entering the territory of making misleading trailers, like Watch Dogs, that was NOT the game they said it would be. 2. Gamers should make a more informed decision before buying a game, you know, like they value their money. 3. When you put it that way, I can concede that it might actually cause more hyping due it being harder to sell games. However, if gamers are making more informed decisions then it might not be necessary because the products will speak for themselves. 4. Yes :). Due to the aforementioned "informed decision making". Lets say, hypothetically of course, that majority of gamers do research upon release, and all they see are people saying how bugged a game is, or how it didn't live up to expectations, chances are the won't buy it. Now lets say these same gamers see a game that has rave reviews, chances are they will consider it more, or buy it. As for your last point, trying to drive sales is the very reason they should polish games. Lets take GTA as an example, personally I've never been even the slightest bit disappointed by one, so I have a good view of Rockstar, so I am more inclined to buy their games, because I can be pretty sure I'm getting my money's worth (GTA is the only game I ever buy on day 1). Now lets take anything Ubisoft made, because of bad games recently, I have a bad view of Ubisoft and will not buy their games, no matter what people say. Remember: if you care more about money than your customers, soon you will have neither. Your comment has sure made me think more critically about my own view, so I thank you for that.### Assistant: I think you just brought in another point, trusting the company brand. If a company like ubisoft keeps releasing shit games they will lose customers and people will be more cautious about buying from them. You just talk about how you blindly trust rock star. Companies who build that trust will sell more games preordered or not. Companies that fuck over their customers will lose those sales. Due to the fiasco that ubisoft created I'm sure we will see their numbers plummet. This is more of a companies building a reputation rather than a preorder issue. But if people keep buying the shitty games and the companies keep making them shitty then maybe they aren't actually that shit or people have lower standards. Either way the preorder is not the issue as much as the companies reputation.### Human: Someone else also raised this point a while ago. I think we can consider my view changed ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sebald15. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sebald15)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

### Human: CMV:I believe that the British Monarchy is, on balance, a positive net contributor to the United Kingdom in all aspects of our nation.### Assistant: The '[True Cost](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw)' video by CGP Grey is a popular argument that claims that the Royal Family's cost to the individual taxpayer is 65 pence per year, totalling £40million. Given that revenues from Crown lands go to the government in exchange for this salary, the nation receives a return of ~£200 million, with £160 million therefore as profit. This is before the tourist money enters the frame. This figure is debated- Republic (granted, an anti-monarchical campaign group) [suggest the cost of the monarchy is £299 million.](http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances) But let us say, for arguments sake, that the Royal Family was generating profit. By removing the monarchy, would that profit go away? Would tourism decrease? It's not like the castles and the palaces and the other royal paraphernalia would vanish. We have no public beheadings but tourists still flock to the Tower of London. We have no armies clashing at Hastings, yet its a popular tourist destination. We have no idea what happened at Stonehenge, and people lap it up. In short, removing the monarchy's privileged position would save between 40 and 299 million pounds per year, without loss of tourism money matching that figure. Besides, the monarchy would not be able to hold onto its vast land and palaces if its income vanished, so more likely would be the palaces and visitor attractions being taken over by the National Trust or English Heritage or some other organisation, and allowing for continued tourism.### Human: The idea of monarchy is a concept so grounded in popular perceptions of the past, that the notion of deposing a monarchy I feel carries the connotation of anti-authority or counter-cultural movements, but this really need not be the case anymore. No one is proposing the execution of the monarchy, to be replaced by some sort of radical egalitarian state. The Queen and all of the other members of the monarchy could keep their titles, and even some of their Parliament could just assert eminent domain over the Crown Estates, leaving aside a few for the monarchy to make use of so that a living, breathing monarchy could be maintained for the sake of the tourists, and then exclude the monarchy from its current, ceremonial role in the law making process. To me though, the monarchy is less of an issue than the continued existence of a house of lords.### Assistant: [The House of Lords is the only legislature in the G20 with more scientists and researchers than bankers or business owners, clergymen or former journalists combined](http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/media/17348/ucl_report.pdf). I support an unelected House of Lords because I care more about the breadth of expertise than opinion.### Human: The trouble with that study is that it fails to discount those Members who received their seat through hereditary means, and thus presumably received their professional qualifications through similarly fraudulent ways.### Assistant: There is nothing in the first to imply the second.### Human: Of course there is. If we can show that one has been granted one title through nepotism, it is reasonable to conclude that they have acquired any other titles in the same fashion. To assume otherwise is to [unnecessarily multiply entities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).### Assistant: Except we already know that the professional world and a law-based system of nepotism ARE separate entities...### Human: Unfortunately, we know quite well that that is not the case. George W. Bush, for example, was awarded a degree from Yale. No reasonable person could argue that he would be granted admittance on his own merits, let alone graduate.### Assistant: Ignoring the fact that these are completely different systems... Are you serious? Say what you will about Bush's policies, but he is an intelligent person. He made average Yale grades.### Human: I'm not sure how to respond to that. Are you thinking of his father?### Assistant: I'm not, no. Why do you think W was unintelligent? His grades say otherwise.### Human: [They most certainly do not](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/opinion/13karabel.html): > In the fall of 1963, George W. Bush was a senior at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., facing the same dilemma confronting his 232 classmates: where to apply to college. He had never made the honor roll, and his verbal score on the SAT was a mediocre 566. Although popular among his classmates, he was neither an exceptional athlete nor did he possess any particularly outstanding extracurricular talents. Looking over his record, Andover's dean of students suggested that the young Mr. Bush consider applying to schools other than Yale, the alma mater of his father and grandfather. > > But unbeknownst to the dean and Mr. Bush, Yale had quietly changed its admissions policy toward alumni sons during the very months when his application was under consideration. As the number of applicants to Yale increased, the administration decided that it could no longer afford to treat all legacy applicants equally. Instead, it would differentiate among alumni sons, giving extra preference on the basis of the family's contribution to Yale and its importance to American society. Given that he would not have been admitted to Yale without his father's influence, we must presume that same influence had a hand in his grades at Yale.### Assistant: What the article says and what you say are two different things. It does not say he would not otherwise have been admitted. And considering his grades at Yale were average--C's and B's--and that there is no evidence of anyone taking it easy on him--you have no evidence that he didn't belong there with every other C and B student. ... And we were taking about inherited nobility in Britain, which is completely different from the prestige networks in the States. So let's get back on track.### Human: We do have evidence that he was given preference; he was admitted under the legacy system. It is unreasonable to presume he was treated any differently when graded.### Assistant: It is unreasonable to assume that he was treated differently from other students when it comes to grading. Regardless of how he got into the college, admissions is a very separate entity from teaching within a higher education establishment. One does not have undue influence over the other.### Human: You're effectively arguing that the Yale administration acts more ethically behind closed doors than they do in the open.### Assistant: I'm arguing that University educators are not University administrators### Human: That is a distinction without difference.### Assistant: As I stated in my previous reply, you have responded with nothing but conjecture and unsupported assertions.### Human: I have supported my assertions. You continue to refuse to.### Assistant: You have? I have not seen one shred of evidence to support your claims at all. Just false equalities.

### Human: I think that lobbying should be forbidden in the U.S. because it benefits large companies far more than small groups trying to impose positive change. CMV.### Assistant: So you think that freedom of expression should be curtailed, and it should be a criminal offense to try to convince politicians of things?### Human: While the other posts make some legitimate points this hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day OP simply wishes to curtail the ability of opinions and policies he does not personally like from being able to influence government.### Assistant: I'm pretty sure he is referring to big companies bribing congress to vote a certain way.### Human: Lobbying isn't bribery. I certainly wouldn't pin the success of MADD down to their ability to bribe.### Assistant: I know it isn't, I don't think OP is actually complaining about lobbying, he just assumes lobbying and bribing are the same thing.

### Human: CMV: There is no real evidence that Bernie Sanders would have easily beaten Trump, despite the flood of /r/all posts claiming so### Assistant: I'm not sure he would have won, but when I look at what caused Hillary to lose it at least seems plausible. 1. I think trump was proof that policy doesn't matter. Not only did he barely have any, he didn't want to cut entitlements, flip flopped on abortion a few times, and despite having an outsider persona his economic plans very clearly benefit elites the most. Stances that you would think would have undermined him if people gave that weight. 2. What people cared about was saying fuck you to Washington. A lot of people (I want to say 71%) said trumps sexism bothered them, but they still elected him. Because people felt like he heard the little guy, and that was Bernie's main appeal. The districts that used to be democratic that flipped are clearly receptive to liberal ideas, but that wasn't their focus. It was "draining the swamp". 3. Hillary voters wouldnt have left the fold. I'll admit, many, though not close to most, of Bernie's supporters wrote him in, voted third party, or even voted trump, but those are the votes the dems needed back this election. Hillary voters are pragmatists for the most part. They would have still seen Trumps theat and stayed in line in a way a lot of Bernie supporters didn't. 4. This all points to Bernie being more, not less competitive in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Yes Hillary won Pennsylvania, but the presidential election was close. Those suburbs could have been much more blue with a candidate speaking to a populist message. You saw Hillary won Pennsylvania, but that assumes Hillary voters wouldn't turn out for Bernie, which I don't believe is the case. Hillary won the popular vote, it was only at the margins in a few swing states that cost her and its precisely the area Bernie was the strongest. There were thousands of people who don't like trump, but voted to shake up the system. A lot of those would have chosen a clearly more likeable candidate in Bernie given the opportunity. Would it have been enough? Maybe not, but I think the odds are pretty good.### Human: Well, Trump's position in 2016 was so strong that even if we factor out all the states he barely won (by only 2% or less), [Trump has 230 votes.](http://www.270towin.com/maps/Op4DE) It's easy for him to win Florida, where Sanders lost the primaries by over 30% (and Sanders has a hard time with black voters). He has 259 votes now, all without Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. All it takes is for Trump to win just *one* of those three states, or for Bloomberg to take 10 normally blue votes. Then it's over for Bernie.### Assistant: I'm not saying it would be a blowout. You have to admit that the rust belt is the area that Bernie would have most outperformed Hillary regardless of whether it would be enough to win. When you look at the margins there, there are plenty of areas that have been blue since Bill that went red in 2016. Then you have to ask what made them switch? Did the population drastically change since then? I believe that all it would take to have kept them blue was a candidate that addressed the main issue those voters had and that was saying "fuck you" to the elites. I'm not really sure why you thought Bloomberg would run 3rs party. Everyone realizes 3rd party candidates can't win and Bloomberg would realize that too. The Hillary voters who feared trump would have still feared trump. The main problem Hillary voters had with Bernie was his lack of pragmatism not his ideas in general. I guess it's possible Bloomberg would have run, but he could have taken some from trump too so that just makes things to murky to forecast in my opinion.### Human: > Had both Mr. Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont appeared headed toward victory in the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries, Mr. Bloomberg was determined to run, according to his advisers, several of whom insisted on anonymity to speak candidly about confidential discussions. [Source from the *New York Times*](http://nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-not-running-for-president.html) Even if Bloomberg takes a few red states, as long as Sanders can't get over 270 - which will be nearly impossible if Bloomberg wins a single blue state, or splits the vote enough to allow Trump to win a single blueish state like Virginia - Trump wins via the House. Even if the House won't vote for Trump, which I find unlikely, Sanders still won't win.### Assistant: With Bloomberg taking a lot of trump votes, maybe that opens up states that Bernie couldn't have gotten otherwise. Or Bloomberg might have dropped out to support Bernie of it was clear he couldn't win. Regardless I think it's unfair to assume it definitely would have gone to the house. Trump a message clearly resonated with a lot of people. Bernie had a similar message, but also came across as much more honest. Trump voters voted because they hated Hillary as much if not more than liking trump and that motivation just wouldn't have been there against Bernie. I understand it wouldn't have been a sure thing, but I think it's likely he would have failed better.

### Human: CMV: Due to Climate Change and the growing world population, the most moral option in the US is to adopt instead of having a biological child.### Assistant: I totally understand your reasoning and agree about the threat of climate change. However the issue with resource scarcity is NOT production, it's distribution. It's not that we can't make enough food or mine enough resources to take care of an increased population, it's that we don't distribute those resources to meet people's needs, we waste them in pursuit of profit and unsustainable agriculture/farming practices. As a side issue, speaking to the moral aspect, this narrative of population control is being employed today as an argument in favor of limited development for third world countries, which is a standard that doesn't apply to the first world. In that way, the first world protects itself from reforming the production/distribution and balance in the world economy that would solve this problem, and puts the blame on the third world countries who don't have the power to alter world food distribution. An example of this would be the famine from Goldman Sachs [gambling on food futures](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html). If you are concerned specifically about sustainability, only a reform in the production/distribution and economy will last long enough to both meet the needs of an increased population, and begin to address the issues that give rise to overpopulation in the first place! Overproduction is a product of this economy - if you don't address that issue, resource extraction can never decrease in scale.### Human: I'm not trying to employ it as an argument of limiting the population growth of the third world; that's why I mentioned the US in the title. The problems in the US are absolutely economic in root, but they're not being solved. Wouldn't the most prudent course of action be to assume there won't be wholesale systemic change? Even if we did accomplish massive cultural and systemic changes in the US and drastically cut the amount of food waste; that still wouldn't solve the larger issue of global climate change, it would just be kicking the can down the road. I'm also working on the assumption that raising a child in the US is worse for the environment than raising a child in third world countries. A child in the US goes through thousands of diapers, hundreds of clothes items, and (not literal) tons of food. Wouldn't adopting a child in the US drastically reduce the carbon footprint compared to leaving the child in the system and having a child of your own?### Assistant: I know you aren't using the argument this way, but it's being used on poor people/immigrants/refugees in this country too, of course. Anyway, we agree if those problems aren't solved, there will be a systemic crisis that will change the moral variables of having a kid pretty drastically. Until that crisis happens, however, I am of the opinion that carbon footprints are bullshit, compared to the overwhelming waste and carbon produced by our industrial and military system, and that it's more important that you and your child - born *or* adopted - try and make the world better than try to micromanage your carbon output vis a vis polluters who contribute a million times more carbon than a thousand freshly born babies ever will. Let's focus on what matters and spare ourselves the grief of judging eachother based on our tiny footprint that has no impact on the outcome. I support living green as a healthy and moral choice, but anywhere past that I think loses some perspective.### Human: The thing is major corporations respond to financial stimuli. If a larger proportion of the population demanded more environmentally friendly production, then things would shift in that direction. We've already seen a pretty large response in that vein from companies like Apple and Google. I think the misconception people have is that their carbon footprint doesn't matter; the impact are your consumer demands, not your carbon wastes. That said, I agree that a large part of carbon emissions definitely come from the public sector and military, but those sectors just respond to a different type of demand. Hopefully Democrats can gain footing in the US legislature this cycle and curtail things a bit.### Assistant: They damn well do respond to financial stimuli, I agree. I've worked to shift corporate investments totaling a few hundred million. Hence my passion for the subject. And it is precisely because we are so aligned about this, I think it is a misconception that consumption drives production alone, when in many of the largest sectors of our economy it is production that drives consumption. Regulation will affect more companies, and change more consumption patterns, than a million individual consumer choices. In light of the impact legislation, reform, regulation and even activism can make, having a baby doesn't even register. Like a drop in the ocean, as far as the role of one consumer's demand in a vast market structured by government fiat. You'd probably make a bigger difference in consumer demand by playing currency markets with your retirement fund than by skipping a kid. And yes certainly, I too Democrats step up and give us something!### Human: > You'd probably make a bigger difference in consumer demand by playing currency markets with your retirement fund than by skipping a kid. Would skewing investments in favor of companies with sustainable policies be a productive course of action?

### Human: I believe graffiti is beneficial to urban culture, and street artists should be paid to do what they do. CMV?### Assistant: Not everyone is Banksy. Do an image search of ugly graffiti. That shit looks awful and that's about 99% of the graffiti I see. The big, block multi color letters are pretty cool. Regardless, people own these buildings. They have a legal and moral right to say whether people can spray paint on them. Do you really disagree with that? Is the property owner who constamtly has to pay to get "Lil J '13 reprzent" scrubbed off his building the bad guy?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: If I own property, why do you (the graffiti artist in this case) get to decide if/what gets put on it? Does this mean someone could just spraypaint your car with whatever they want on it?### Human: Alternatively - why do you as a property owner get to decide you can pollute my visual environment with an ugly blank wall.### Assistant: Why do we let ugly people live if they "pollute your visual environment"? You cannot legislate for aesthetics, only for property values. And graffiti lowers property values because the vast majority of people **don't** like it. But you didn't answer my question. Where is this line? You can do it on walls -- what about cars? Front of houses? Other people's graffiti?### Human: >what about cars? Front of houses? Other people's graffiti? Yes, yes and yes IMO, but I'm a pretentious anarchist so yeah. I'm philosophically opposed to private property. >You cannot legislate for aesthetics, only for property values. And graffiti lowers property values because the vast majority of people don't like it. You *could* legislate for aesthetics, something along the lines of: *Any external wall; part of a commercial or public enterprise visible from public property; greater than 1m^2 in area; consisting of a monotone colour-scheme or un-painted surface is open to artistic exploit as pursuant to **The Civilization Beautification Act of 2013**.* As for it lowering property values, perhaps if graffiti was legal, better artwork would be possible to put up - and as a result neighbourhoods become colourful and expressive - and property values go up. Most people like art, and if the people in the community are the ones putting the art in the community, the community strengthens as an artistic identity emerges and property values take on new meaning. Have you seen the value of some paintings?### Assistant: Where's your car parked? I have a can of green textured rusto, and i'd like to write my name on your windshield.

### Human: I believe racial profiling works. CMV### Assistant: The problem with racial profiling isn't false positives, it's false negatives. I'm going to stick entirely regarding terrorism instead of law enforcement... I think the case is much more obvious there. There's only so much "attention" a given worker can pay. If they are racially profiling against some minority, they are paying less attention than everyone else. Let's say a Russian decides to blow something up instead of a person of Middle Eastern descent? The odds of catching that Russian are drastically lower, perhaps even more extreme than the increase in odds of positively catching a legitimate Middle Eastern terrorist. I think it's even more important to know that other forms of profiling are *more* effective than racial profiling. Security officials are trained in the distinct demeanors of suicide bombers (supposedly they're pretty obvious if you know what you're looking for), and the obvious way terrorists will respond to questions and analysis. I think for someone to seriously suggest the utility of racial profiling, there needs to be some evidence to support it. It just seems that any intentional profiling by ethnicity will automatically increase suspicious targeting to the "target groups" in an amount that significantly exceeds the actual balance of risk, increasing the net risk for failure... This is especially true because people who profile against ethnicities have a habit of subtly becoming prejudiced against those ethnicities on a personal level... and terrorists aren't *that* stupid. They will sometimes use people they know are less likely to be profiled.### Human: >There's only so much "attention" a given worker can pay. If they are racially profiling against some minority, they are paying less attention than everyone else. Let's say a Russian decides to blow something up instead of a person of Middle Eastern descent? The odds of catching that Russian are drastically lower, perhaps even more extreme than the increase in odds of positively catching a legitimate Middle Eastern terrorist. Interesting that this is my point exactly. If you only have so much "attention", you need to prioritize where that attention goes. If you know that 90% of your previous terrorists were Arab. And you have currently both an Arab and a Russian suspect. You have to make a quick decision on who to search first. With no other information available take can help you prioritize (their history, contacts, religion, wealth, or anything else, all you have is their race because all you have is their name and a photo.) Wouldn't it be reasonable to start with the Arab one because previous statistic enforces this? You might be wrong, but when there is a lack of additional information, race might be the only thing you have. >I think it's even more important to know that other forms of profiling are more effective than racial profiling. Security officials are trained in the distinct demeanors of suicide bombers (supposedly they're pretty obvious if you know what you're looking for), and the obvious way terrorists will respond to questions and analysis. Yes, that is true. That does not in anyway means racial profiling has no utilities. Other things are also or more useful does not mean one thing is useless. >It just seems that any intentional profiling by ethnicity will automatically increase suspicious targeting to the "target groups" in an amount that significantly exceeds the actual balance of risk, increasing the net risk for failure... Yes. That happens all the time. But that is a result of poor training/ decision and not the fact that racial profiling doesn't help. People using racial profiling incorrectly does not mean racial profiling is not useful. > They will sometimes use people they know are less likely to be profiled. Yes. But statistic are statistic for a reason. In this particular scenario, it is just simply much harder for the bad guys to convince a blond hair white girl to be a suicide bomber.### Assistant: > Interesting that this is my point exactly. If you only have so much "attention", you need to prioritize where that attention goes. If you know that 90% of your previous terrorists were Arab. And you have currently both an Arab and a Russian suspect. You have to make a quick decision on who to search first. With no other information available take can help you prioritize (their history, contacts, religion, wealth, or anything else, all you have is their race because all you have is their name and a photo.) Wouldn't it be reasonable to start with the Arab one because previous statistic enforces this? You might be wrong, but when there is a lack of additional information, race might be the only thing you have. Problem is this allows for very clear ways to subvert the system by specifically recruiting people who don't fit the profile. Many [converts to Islam](http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Converts_to_Islam#Involvement_in_Terrorism) have been found to be involved in terrorists plots, including white men and women. A few examples - clean-shaven and in Western dress, these men would be unlikely suspects for terrorism, yet they have been convicted for plotting to commit it: Richard Dart: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00394/Richard_394820c.jpg Nicky Reilly: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/24/reilly276.jpg Simon Keeler: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00103/SNN2602D_103360a.jpg Or this woman, Samantha Lewthwait, who is now a [financer](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323983/Now-White-Widow-connected-British-born-Al-Qaeda-bomb-maker.html) of Islamic terrorist organisations: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01552/Samantha_Lewthwait_1552506a.jpg### Human: Of those successful recruitment of people outside their usual pool of candidates, how often do you think the terrorist organization had to exposes themselves? There is only a few ways to catch a bad guy during their cycle of crime. You can't catch them while their are planning in the safety of their own hideouts. You can't catch them while they are scouting their location (they aren't doing anything wrong.) You can catch them when they recruit help or purchase tools (depending on the tools.) You can't catch them when they practice on their own. You can catch them when they are executing their crime. Forcing your enemies to change their effective tactics to a less effective one seems like a usual crime-fighting technique to me. If the statistic of Arab Muslim American involved in terrorism began to drop significant, while White Muslim American suspect began to rise, it would also be reasonable to switch the racial profile to adjust for the change.### Assistant: >If the statistic of Arab Muslim American involved in terrorism began to drop significant, while White Muslim American suspect began to rise, it would also be reasonable to switch the racial profile to adjust for the change. So you are always one cycle behind the curve? You have to wait for white muslims to terrorize before you target white Muslims? That's like the most frustrating game of whack a mole ever that nobody can win.### Human: This seems like the #1 argument against racial profile, that for some reason, if you use racial profile as part of your assessment process, that you would just **ignore** all other traits. Like, if you have three suspect, race A, B, C. Race A fits the profile. There seems to be a believe that if you use race profiling, you would just let B and C go immediately. All racial profiling should do is prioritize A because statistically A is more likely your culprit. After you investigate A, you will then do B and C.

### Human: CMV: The outrage over the death of Cecil the lion is not based on empathy, but rather anthropocentrism and selfishness.### Assistant: You are partially right. There is certainly an anthropocentric aspect to all the outrage, however, that doesn't mean that there isn't an empathic aspect to it as well. Humans find it easier to empathize with animals we see as majestic or beautiful rather than "food." Jimmy Fallon cried over the lion's death. It's hard to say that he cried over decreased tourism revenue, isn't it? Perhaps this story will help humans empathize with animals more overall.### Human: > however, that doesn't mean that there isn't an empathic aspect to it as well. Yes, I agree there is some degree of empathy, but that's why I said the outrage is not *based* on empathy, but rather it's based on a less objective, more human value oriented perspective. >Humans find it easier to empathize with animals we see as majestic or beautiful rather than "food." Yes, I understand the psychology and social constructions of why we value certain animals over others, but I think that's anthropocentric. >Jimmy Fallon cried over the lion's death. It's hard to say that he cried over decreased tourism revenue, isn't it? I agree he didn't cry over decreased tourism revenue, but I think his emotions were primarily based on how Cecil was position in relation to humans. >Perhaps this story will help humans empathize with animals more overall. I hope so.### Assistant: Empathy can still be rooted in anthropocentrism.### Human: Yes, but there are different forms of empathy. Some are more objective and logical than others.### Assistant: Why would you prioritise an 'objective and logical' empathy? That sounds absurd: we value empathy in *spite* of 'objective' rational values, not because of them### Human: Why wouldn't you be logical with your empathy? Americans give billions of dollars to charities that help people in their own country or own community This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you consider that the money could be much more effective if it was spent in poorer countries, then I think it's a fair point to make that an objective, utilitarian type of empathy is a lot more productive than relying on our own personal feelings to decide what we should value.### Assistant: Being logical *with* empathy is not the same as having a logical form of empathy. In your example, you're suggesting that someone is empathetic first and then expresses the empathy in a logical way. This is not equivalent to having a logical form of empathy, which is what you're arguing is superior.

### Human: CMV: Universities should not take disciplinary action against students for crimes that have not been proven through the judicial process.### Assistant: Well; do you think universities should only be handing out punishments based on what courts decide? Do you not think they are appropriate in punishing cheating, for example? If you think they are competent in their ability to punish cheating - why would they be incompetent *specifically* here? I'm not saying it's appropriate - but what criteria are you using to determine what a university is competent to do? Also remember that the university only decides non judicial punishment. It can't send you to jail.### Human: > Well; do you think universities should only be handing out punishments based on what courts decide? Why are the universities involved at all? It's a crime and should be handled by the police and the justice system, not by some people working at a school. >Do you not think they are appropriate in punishing cheating, for example? That's directly the school's business. >I'm not saying it's appropriate - but what criteria are you using to determine what a university is competent to do? Whether or not it is actually the university's business.### Assistant: Why is it not the university's business? It is interested in fostering an atmosphere conducive to both learning and maintaining a hospitable atmosphere on campus. Combatting sexual assault is definitely something the university would *like* to do.### Human: > Why is it not the university's business? It is interested in fostering an atmosphere conducive to both learning and maintaining a hospitable atmosphere on campus. If they're aware of a rape, they need to let the authorities take care of it. They're a school, not a court. We already have systems in place to handle these problems. They can try to *prevent* these actions, but when they happen, they need to let those who are supposed to handle it, handle it. >Combatting sexual assault is definitely something the university would like to do. And they can do all they want to prevent it. I don't think anyone here is against that. I'm just saying that determining if one is guilty and what their punishment should be should be left up to the criminal justice system. We already have this system in place. Rape is a crime. Rape victims need justice. Crime + justice = criminal justice.### Assistant: >If they're aware of a rape, they need to let the authorities take care of it. They're a school, not a court. They aren't handing out criminal sentences, they are merely enforcing punitive action. People are free with some notable restrictions to take punitive action that isn't criminal justice. Of course - this has limits. But that doesn't prove your contention that a university ought not to act on it at all. >I'm just saying that determining if one is guilty and what their punishment should be should be left up to the criminal justice system. We already have this system in place. Rape is a crime. Rape victims need justice. Crime + justice = criminal justice. Except the justice in question here isn't criminal justice.### Human: Should a University be required to call the police if a student is suspected of murdering his roommate? We as a society need to KILL this notion that institutions (universities, churches) are responsible for policing themselves. If you suspect your kid has been abused by a Priest, going to the Bishop to deal with it is insane, call the police. If you witness a child being raped in a locker room, call the police, don't report it to his boss (like what happened at Penn State). A university's job is to teach, that's it. Let the police, police.### Assistant: You speak as if action is either or. That is most definitely not the case. Edit: It also seems like people necessarily have an obligation to report crimes to the police. I am not sure that is a sound premise.

### Human: CMV: Analysis gender of roles in movies without looking at the violence distribution is a flawed and dishonest analysis.### Assistant: > An honest analysis of the movies presented would conclude that, on a role per role basis, 6 of the 10 movies had equal or greater proportion of the lines being delivered by women. Where did you get this conclusion from? Quickly skimming the article, two of their major conclusions are * Not one of the top 10 movies of 2016 had a 50% speaking, female cast. * Only 1 of 2016’s top 10 movies had 50% dialogue by a female character. Even if we leave out four action movies, the results would still be 0/6 and 1/6### Human: [removed]### Assistant: I am looking at the breakdown per movie, and I am not seeing the statistic you are referencing. Can you please provide where you are seeing that data?### Human: [The lines under the bubble diagram. Count the movies where the bottom line \(words\) has an equal or greater amount of pink than the top line \(roles\)](http://imgur.com/a/KSEfR) Four greater, Four lesser, Two Equal.### Assistant: Can you explain why you consider this statistic (lines delivered by a single character of a given gender) to be more relevant than "characters of a given gender" or "lines delivered by characters of a given gender"? It seems to me that either of the previous two metrics would be more notable when looking at the overall casting and role importance of women in films. Your metric puts emphasis on women in leading roles (who will have more lines than minor characters), but generally when looking for equality in films viewers are looking for similar numbers of actors of each gender and similar importance levels among genders, not just that there was a large role held by a woman (though that is also important).### Human: Because, like the writer of the article, you have overlooked what most characters in many violent movies do: Get injured or killed. I suspect that there is a strong correlation between gender asymetry in characters and violence content of films. I also suspect, that in films with the lowest violence content, you will find the largest number of the characters being women, and the largest number of lines being delivered by women. Consider romances or dramas. Until society is willing to accept dispoable female mooks, then this correlation will continue, and to ignore it is dishonest.### Assistant: Yes, I've heard you saying that. What I'm wondering is why you consider this statistic more important than either of the more obvious statistics, *considering that the author of the article in question is solely looking at female representation in films and not talking about possible causes.* This author's sole point was to analyze female representation in high-grossing films. Full stop. They did not set out to talk about *why* that happens or make hypotheses about what could have caused this. Knowing this, the factors that the article focuses on are more important, and the one you are touting as something that shows equality does not make as much sense (especially considering it has 4 movies showing a positive trend, 2 showing a neutral trend, and 4 a negative trend, which only just hits equal instead of anything better). Your CMV is that the analysis is dishonest for not talking about something that could have played into the results. Given that a) the article did not claim to interpret what trends may have caused the results and b) lack of depth or omission of a related topic is not necessarily dishonesty, it looks to me that this article was entirely honest, and just did not talk about causes of the inequality it discussed.### Human: A conclusion without a reason says nothing and is incomplete. Facts by themselves are not truths to be lived by but are instead to be used as evidence toward something. The article OP quoted has come to the conclusion that women are underrepresented but have not really explored why. To me their conclusion is incomplete and in my opinion for it to be incomplete, they must be dishonest or flawed.

### Human: CMV: No one else named Bush, Clinton, or Obama should ever be president again.### Assistant: 1) So... you're saying the only politicians who don't cater to rich and powerful groups are independents, and absolutely everyone else does? 2) You're arguing for the superficiality of voting for someone based on their name or family ties. Yet *not* voting for someone based on their name is equally as ridiculous. 3) Yes, presidents are influenced by many people, family members included. Yet if Hillary were elected, Bill would by no means be able to make executive orders, appoint cabinet members, or officially use any of his previous powers. Being just another voice among many to Hillary is *not* the same as remaining president.### Human: 1) No. I did not say that. I'm saying that "family voting" enables the same small group of people to run things, and I'm saying that many people who complain that the US is turning into an oligarchy will be voting Hillary and Jeb in 2016. That's hypocritical. 2) Sure. If were making a textbook logical argument that's all fine and good. But I also think that we are very likely to pass over a more qualified or "better" candidate if there is name recognition. For example, Jeb Bush was a 2 term governor who really didn't do much of note nationally. He hasn't held office in quite some time. Do you think we would be hearing from him if he wasn't a Bush? Same with Hillary getting elected Senator in a state she never had a connection to. I also think that this idea of having Presidential term limits comes from a tradition of wariness of monarchy. It seems like we're going there. 3) Sure, Bill will have no *real* power like the ones you listed, but I think you are wrong when you say that he would be just another voice among many. He would see Hillary every day, eat meals with her, talk about life, and other stuff that comes with living with someone. You can't tell me that when she has a tough dilemma, she wouldn't confide in and be heavily influenced by *her husband.* When I have issues in life (work or personal) I talk to my fiance about them. Why would they be any different? I feel like I'm Hillary-bashing, but I'm focusing more on her because that's *way* more likely to happen, not for any ideological reasons. Just curious, do you support term limits for President?### Assistant: > When I have issues in life (work or personal) I talk to my fiance about them. Why would they be any different? Presidents talk to other Presidents regularly, and they reach out for advice about issues. How is this any different than Hillary asking Bill for advice? Personally, I'd prefer my President reach out to people that have had previous experience with an issue they are unfamiliar with, rather than just going for it.### Human: > Personally, I'd prefer my President reach out to people that have had previous experience with an issue they are unfamiliar with, rather than just going for it. but isn't that the point of the cabinet? i'd rather the president get advise from his actual advisers rather then give undue influence to former presidents.### Assistant: It is, but sometimes they still reach out to their predecessor for another viewpoint.### Human: i get that, i am saying they probably shouldn't.### Assistant: Why?### Human: well one because it gives the previous president influence they should not have. and two because most of the (arguably all) presidents now alive would not give good advice.### Assistant: > president influence they should not have It's not like the current President is required to ask them. They get influence because the President specifically ASKS them for their input. > because most of the (arguably all) presidents now alive would not give good advice. You don't know that.### Human: i realize how influence and asking people things works. nothing of your first point means they don't have influence they shouldn't have. it just says how they get it. and as to your second point, no, i do not *know* for a certainty they would give bad advice. however i am not optimistic looking at their lives and track records.### Assistant: I think the point is, you don't (/ shouldn't) get that call. It's not up to you if the president should or shouldn't talk to an ex president. And legislating their decision making process would limit their decision making process.### Human: well i am not arguing that i should be the final arbitrator, but it is a cmv and i am backing my position. and why is limiting their decision making process a bad thing? would it not be a good idea to limit the influence that people paid to promote an outlook have on a president? should not the decisions be decided by the facts rather then the opinions?### Assistant: So, by your logic, if you were working as the new manager of McDonald's and encountered a problem that you have never dealt with before, it would be *wrong* of you to ask the previous manager (who was not necessarily fired for poor work) for advice merely on the basis that said former manager shouldn't have that kind of influence on his/her predecessor? I'm not arguing the point that past presidents have made decisions that in hindsight are not the best course of action, but rather that their being a former holder of a position should not automatically disqualify them from being consulted for advise - especially is their consultation is by the invitation of their successor.

### Human: CMV: Saying that it's solely up to white people to "educate themselves" on their privilege and racism won't fix the problems associated with privilege and racism.### Assistant: Have you ever talked to real people about the real problems facing them? This seems like the majority of you contact with this issue is online. I talked to a black friend of mine and he said that the first time he knew that people treated him differently than white people was when he was 4. I'm trying to see how a person could explain to me a lifetime of how he felt racism. He would have to remember those events to give me his education. And then after all of my learning, I would still be in a world where I held advantages. If you had to wear the mantle of being a person who has to deal with racism you would feel a bit pissed if you had to educate every white person on those struggles and thus relive them as you talk about them.### Human: Whether or not someone is pissed about having to educate a larger population is besides the point -- my contention is that it's a necessary component for the change a lot of people want to see. Not wanting to engage with the opposing group you see as the "one with the privilege and the one who needs to educate themselves" -- regardless of how exhausting or frustrating it may be -- will not help ease racial tensions, in my opinion.### Assistant: Are white people not able to do some thinking on this issue and then try to create a dialogue with other people about it. It seems that you just want to place all the responsibility for this on black people. There is nothing stopping white people from learning a lot on this issue. There are massive amounts of first hand accounts. There are African American studies courses. There is the simple act of asking others about their experiences and gaining the perspective that people had totally different upbringings. Have you ever had a real conversation with a black in your life. Not an online one, bu with a real person? I'm sure if you invested the time, in real life, you would find people who would be perfectly happy to start a dialogue with you.### Human: >Are white people not able to do some thinking on this issue and then try to create a dialogue with other people about it. My point is that when trying to create a dialogue with the black community, they are shut out. >It seems that you just want to place all the responsibility for this on black people. There is nothing stopping white people from learning a lot on this issue. I didn't SAY nothing is stopping white people. My point is that black people are NOT HELPING THE SITUATION BY REFUSING TO HELP. Stop focusing on the white/black responsibility, because I've said several times that this CMV is solely focusing on the "black" mentality. >Have you ever had a real conversation with a black in your life. Not an online one, bu with a real person? A "black"? Nice. My wife and child are black, so I tend to interact with them everyday. I don't think I should have to qualify my experience with this for my CMV to be validated. It's irrelevant, because my CMV is not talking about my attitude towards the subject, it's talking about a growing mentality in the black community that reacts with hostility to the burden of educating others who are oblivious. >I'm sure if you invested the time, in real life, you would find people who would be perfectly happy to start a dialogue with you. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. My CMV does NOT say "There is no way for white folks to learn about black struggles and racism, and there is no way to start a dialogue." It just... does not. You keep arguing against the point I'm not even contending or focusing on. >I'm sure if you invested the time, in real life, you would find people who would be perfectly happy to start a dialogue with you. Again -- NO ONE IS CONTESTING THIS FACT. I'm addressing the mentality of some black folks.### Assistant: > I'm addressing the mentality of some black folks. While you may have good intentions, this comes off as trying to attack a strawman. There are millions of black people and it would be bizarre if all of them agreed on something as broad and challenging as fixing race relations. Are you an American? If so, do you have the energy and means to correct every misunderstanding about America that a non-American brings up with you? Not necessarily. Maybe you don't know anything about the issue being discussed (i.e. experiencing racism does not automatically provide answers to how to solve it). Maybe it's stressful or difficult to express your thoughts on the matter. If your view is simply that some black people don't approach this kind of conversation as productively as they theoretically could then I doubt anyone can change your mind. But perhaps we can change your mind about the importance of such a view? Why focus on the minority of unhelpful dialogue when there is so much more helpful dialogue? You can make this same kind of argument about any minority you want - but why would you?

### Human: CMV: Lying about your beliefs when that means saving your life and allies does not necessarily indicate lack of courage but is the only logical thing to do### Assistant: Remember that movie "Braveheart" and the memorable "Freeedoooom" at the end? Think of the kind of effect that had on people, versus him saying "Ok you can have Scotland, please don't kill me". If he did the latter, and somehow got freed, I doubt all that many people would still be eager to fight for him and give their lives for him. Killing someone who keeps their beliefs until the end creates a martyr, it motivates people to push harder to fight for the same cause. In the end, being killed while being the figurehead of a movement, inspiring everyone, can do more good for the cause than just weaseling your way out of death.### Human: I haven't watched breveheart unfortunately, but I see your point. In such a case death might be preferable. What about people with less fame and significance? Does their death change anything? Because if it doesn't, then staying alive and spreading the beliefs is certainly more useful.### Assistant: Sorry for the spoiler (won't ruin the movie though) It still reinforces the whole "other people are willing to sacrifice themselves for this cause too, I'm not alone in this" attitude in other people who share the belief. "If he is willing to lie about this to save his neck, will he also run away as soon as the battle gets tough? Do others share his attitude about it? Maybe I should be ready to run too if there's a good chance we'll lose".### Human: But this would happen only if the deaths became known right? You convinced my about the significance of the death of someone famous, but what about people that nobody knows anything about them? People who have families and their wives and children will be the only ones who will suffer?### Assistant: Well, you were talking about doing so publicly, which I assume would be in front of a crowd, so the previously unknown person would become known. I agree with you that if you are in private, or in the company of an insignificant number of people, it is best to say whatever keeps you alive.### Human: With publicly I meant in a way that the government knows that this person has changed their views, maybe the best word would be oficially. It seems like we agree that when your death is insignificant you should protect yourself, but you convinced me that if the person is well-known their death would be more valuable. Here's a delta: ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/valkyriav. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/valkyriav)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: CMV: I feel like the Republicans are the 'bad guys' PLEASE CMV!### Assistant: Hi, I study public opinion and voting behavior for a living. First, what you are feeling is perfectly normal, and in fact quite common for members of both parties to feel. We are all socialized onto a particular "team" and learn to see our team as the good guys and the other team as the bad guys. Partisan attachments are known to be symbolic and emotional, and they stir up strong feelings and color our perceptions in tons of ways. But while it's not unusual, it does make political discourse a lot less productive -- democracy functions better when citizens can talk to each other rationally, constructively, and open-mindedly. So step 1 is just to recognize that even though we all have strong feelings about the opposite party, we'd all be better off trying to get past them. The second thing to realize is that basically everybody sincerely wants to make the country better and do the right thing. They just have different ideas about how to accomplish that. Much of your complaints have to do with policy disagreements, but those are inevitable in a large democracy. Different people value different things, prioritize things in different orders, have different experiences and backgrounds, have idiosyncratic preferences, and worship differently. Does that make them bad people? Not really. Just different. It's okay to disagree -- it's natural, democratic, and sometimes fun. Heck, even being completely wrong about something doesn't make you a bad person. We're all human, after all. Third, parties are absolutely not homogeneous. There are lots of people who identify as Republicans yet support gay marriage, believe in climate change, and/or hold various other liberal positions. Republicans in Texas or Utah are very different from Republicans in Massachusetts or Illinois. Pick a Republican at random, and you can probably find a handful of things you agree about -- not every Republican is Rick Santorum and not every Democrat is Nancy Pelosi. Now, onto your substantive concerns ... * Ignorance -- The sad fact of the matter is that most voters from both parties are ignorant. Lots of research shows that people don't know a whole lot about issues and often just take on whatever positions the party leaders espouse. Republicans *and* Democrats. One of the most robust observations in political behavior over the last 50 years is that most voters are really, really ignorant about political issues. * Fear of change -- Everybody fears change unless it's change they want. Republicans fear changes that Democrats want, and Democrats fear changes that Republicans want. * Hatred for Obama -- Yes, there is a lot of animosity toward Obama. But eight years ago, there was also a lot of animosity toward GWB, and Republicans commonly complained that Democrats were running campaigns on just hating George Bush. Before that, Republicans hated Clinton. This gets back to the "team attachments" aspect of partisan attachment -- the president is very powerful and the face of his party, so people in the opposition party tend to hate him except in very unusual cases. * Contradicting available evidence -- Both parties do this, but on different issues. Democrats are more likely to be anti-GMO in defiance of an overwhelming scientific consensus, and anti-vaccination beliefs are largely independent of political ideology. People in general form lots of opinions based on something other than hard evidence. * Xenophobia -- There is some evidence out there that racial attitudes correlate with party ID, but after you control for the fact that more minorities identify as Democrats, the gap is [not nearly as wide as you might think](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/). The evidence shows that "there are white racists in both parties[, and] by most questions, they represent a minority of white voters in both parties." The bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats have different opinions and priorities, but that doesn't automatically make them better or worse people. Behavioral research usually finds that people go through the same basic cognitive processes to arrive at their positions -- they take different positions because their preferences and backgrounds are so different. And that's okay. EDIT: To those interpreting parts of this argument as some form of moral relativism, let me clarify that I'm NOT saying it's impossible to disagree in ways that make you evil. Rather, I'm suggesting that disagreeing doesn't *automatically* make someone evil, and it's okay for two good people to disagree. That's why I went on to address as many of OP's substantive concerns as I could.### Human: > democracy functions better when citizens can talk to each other rationally, constructively, and open-mindedly. S Human beings, for the most part are not rational. That's why no commercials explain anything. That's why human beings are so impressionable by certain tactics, which is why the population can be divided that way. Think of all the issues with 2 sides to be on, and basically half the population is all in agreement on a large number of the issues, and the other half all agree on the opposite position. It's not *quite* perfectly cut and dry like that, but suspiciously close. And that's why there is religion. Because people more easily believe in a God that will judge you in the afterlife, than the logic that explains why you should behave kindly and justly and why you should share, practice moderation and love others as you would love yourself. If human beings were reasonable, then they couldn't believe in Gods, but they would all see and agree on the same philosophy of life. If two parties discuss and don't result in agreement, then at least one party is not reasonable. In most groups of humans, when 2 opposites discuss politics, most of the time neither are reasonable. It is extremely rare to meet a human being that will see logic, and truly fundamentally change their view. Like suddenly not believing in religion. Usually to change people this way, it is not logic you need, but other tactics. That's why there are no political campaigns that explain things logically, it's all scare tactics, and bashing the other guy, what tie to wear, how to hold your hands, where to make an appearance, etc... It is games to get votes not presenting a position and reasoning behind it, and letting the reason of humans do the rest. You'll never see a politician say something like "Well what I want to do is this, because I believe it will be benificial for these reasons, which will cost us this, which we believe is a fair trade because of xyz." It's not like that.### Assistant: I agree with much of this. My point was that we're all better off when we discuss things rationally, not that we actually do that most of the time.### Human: My point is that a very large quantity of people are not genetically equipped to actually do that. It is not that we lack effort or desire. People need to believe, they are not capable of good reasoning. Nations are in control of people that can't reason, and politicians are experts at getting people to think what they want. Or at least, that's what democracy ought to be. In many cases it is simply the illusion of democracy, cutting out the middle man.### Assistant: Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Do you have any evidence? There's tons of psychological research about the rational and the emotional being two sides of human cognition. I would argue that people are *imperfectly* rational, but that doesn't mean they can't strive for more rationality or make progress toward it.### Human: They are only capable of limited degrees of it. Most things are way too complicated. They don't understand how logic can work to find knowledge. I know this from experience. I have been studying people for a long time. That is why nobody can invent anything, it is why many people have trouble solving puzzles. It is why people have to be taught scientific methodology, it is why people must be taught fallacies, and why even when they are taught them, they still commit them and don't understand the significance. When you talk about logic to people, they think it is just justification for thought. They will say things like "your logic" and "my logic" whereas there is only logic. There is reasoning that finds knowledge or it does not. Just like there is no "your math" or "my math" there is just math, and a mathematical proof is either correct, or it isn't. It is not subjective. Logic works that way, and knowledge can be uncovered by thought alone. Any human can make a mistake, but if all human beings were logical, then all human beings would seek the best solutions mankind can come up with, and we'd all agree, having seen the logic. It is not subjective. But we are not logical, and we will exchange fallacies just trying to appear correct in a social setting. Concern more with appearance than knowledge. We are not very smart. We think we are, because of all our stuff, but were it not for the smaller percentage of smarter ones, we'd still be living like apes. Apes are pretty smart compared to most of us. People believe illogical things. Many things are too complicated for them. That is because of how intelligence works. I've studied that also. I understand people. There is a good reason religion exists, there is a good reason why we have all of this technology, and know the names of individuals responsible for the greatest leaps. Why they discover and invent things, and many of us struggle to understand how it works and even how to use it, when it has been specifically designed to be easy to use. When you read things like the philosophers of old, and stuff like that, these were lessons that needed to be taught. they were not common knowledge. Most people left to their own devices wouldn't ever figure anything of any significance out. Even simple things like inventing a tool is difficult for most people. They can do it if you show them, but the inventing part is tough for them. I have seen this with simple every day problems I've noticed that people could not solve. “There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” -Leonardo Da Vinci. Most are the 3rd class. The reason that it is hard to see that, is that people will easily assimilate with groups, and follow the sort of alpha group, or what have you. They will often pretend to understand, and use simple tricks to fit in. Nobody wants to look stupid, and everyone tries as hard as they can not to. Ironically, only really smart people will not fear looking stupid, or wrong. It is that way. I can't refer you to a source. You would like that, right? That is appeal to authority fallacy. If it is printed somewhere by a guy in a lab coat, or certified by scientists, which is fair, then you can approve of it. In normal life there are thousands of experiments that take place every day. Most people see the world around them, but they do not observe it. If you observe it, then that's when those experiments truly begin to exist. Every one of us also is frequently shown things in articles, in documentaries, many of which are run by people that don't know what they are doing drawing conclusions that can't be drawn, but people eat it up because of the presentation, and "University of" that's along the top. They are not capable of discerning what is, or isn't good reasoning based on the strength of the reasoning itself. Bare in mind, many people are as well, many people can learn quite a bit, complex things like physics, and how to apply scientific methodology etcetera. But few are beyond that, those that can discover, those that can see beyond what can be shown to them. The differences between us can range very significantly. That's why you hear things like Plato, I think it was, talking about natural slaves. Menial laborers, naturally so, and then other more advanced people that can do things like philosophize. There is a lot of evidence all around you.

### Human: CMV: I don't believe eSports will ever become mainstream unless the tournaments start using the contestants real names and start embracing their human element.### Assistant: I would like to address the name thing only, since I don't have a very good argument for the other aspects of your post. Psudonyms don't seem to be much of a problem in other areas of entertainment. People have been able to use stage names to great success, especially in the performing arts. Heck, using a pseudonym is practically a convention in the rap and hip-hop genres in a similar way that it is a convention in esports. > This is the problem. How is espn going to take an interview with "Mew2King" seriously? How are they going to go to a tournament and say Grand Finals is between ChillenDude88 and Chu Dat. Who are these people? How is pitchfork going to take an interview with "Lady Gaga" seriously? How are they going to do a concert and say "Tonight only: Macklemore and Jay-Z!" Who are these people? > The problem is not the username. The problem is the announcers, the brackets, the everything using their username in place of their real name. Their username gets the glory, their real name is lost to oblivion. That's how stage names work, you become well known and famous under that name and sacrifice becoming as well known by your real name. But ask Stefani Germanotta how well that's worked out for her.### Human: I get what your saying but comparing entertainment sports is too different. Literally the entire professional sports world uses first and last name to denote players. ESports shouldn't be any different, unless you're making the claim that eSports is purely entertainment value which is another argument entirely.### Assistant: What is professional sports if not entertainment? Also, nicknames are pretty common in sports. You've got Beast Mode, you've got Megatron, and those are just two examples off the top of my head. Exports is always going to be different, I don't see why this is an issue.### Human: People keep bringing these ip bit it's totally different. These are nicknames assigned to a select few as badges of honor. The vast vast majority of players go by their real name and even in these cases the players are only called by their nicknames occasionally and affectionately. Their jerseys, graphics, and stats are all by their normal names.### Assistant: Yeah, they also play with a real ball on a field. If eSports is slowed down by, "isn't literally other sports" then everything is going to hold it back, not just the nicknames. My argument is that the public at large has no issue with people not going by their real names - as evidenced by stage names in other areas of entertainment.

### Human: CMV: The 'Punch Nazis' rhetoric is short sighted and dangerous.### Assistant: What would it take to change your view, and do you really want your view changed? I don't think any reasonable person believes that punching a Nazi is not dangerous. However, ill take this to an extreme. If we systematically eliminate every Nazi through violence or just any means necessary, then the ideology will fade away. Seems a bit ironic, doesn't it?### Human: Not ironic, just reality. I'd expect everyone who participates in the hypothetical purge to hang though. This is still America and everyone, no matter how vile, has rights. What I'm looking for is someone who can look at celebratory attitude about this weekend and tell me how it helped anyone. Or just that this violence does less damage than letting that rally happen.### Assistant: How do you feel about a precedent of neo-Nazis protesting as they like, and murdering everyone who disagrees into silence?### Human: You're gonna have to hit me up with this murdering everyone who disagrees with them source. Because if the estimation of 1k people at that rally was correct I want at least 1k murders.### Assistant: Murdering one person to get the message across, then. The core concept is the same. The Nazis are saying "don't talk back or someone gets hurt" and you want people to accept that. I hope you respond to the above, but I really don't see the meat of your objection there anyways. The original Nazi endgame included the murder of everyone who disagreed, that doesn't mean the very first Nazi started killing as many opponents as they could as fast as they could. Even Nazis are capable of planning and restraint.### Human: You think the police and army would just let that happen?

### Human: CMV: The startup world is a huge bubble### Assistant: You could be the best at what you do....but if you cant sell. Your buisness will get nowhere. And thats the truth### Human: it's just I always avoided getting involved into this selling thing, investing in my tech and critical thinking skills, being as self reliable as possible. I'd rather have my work forgotten and live in the streets (or rather start a new project because devs are always needed somewhere) than depend on selling it. I guess that's the root cause of this thread.### Assistant: Which is fine - not everyone has to be interested in the sales side of the business. You should accept, though that sales is at the very heart of every business - a business has to have an inflow of cash otherwise it will cease to exist pretty quickly. As an old boss once told me, "The only thing you need to be a business is a customer" You say that you'd start a new project because "devs are always needed somewhere" but that is only because people need to improve their product so it will _sell_ better. You don't necessarily have to like and you certainly don't have to be part of it, but you have to respect that sales is part of why you have a job. Edit: Spelling### Human: No I don't. The only reason sales, both to consumers and investors, is so heavily required is because of the endlessly enforced competition capitalism.### Assistant: As a salesman, I can tell you that that really isn't true. People see salesmen like the used car dealer who is tricking you into buying a care that was "only driven by a little old lady to church on Sunday." The reality is that most of us - the good ones at least - are people who help our clients solve problems that they don't know how to solve. We bring deep understanding of a particular problem, along with a specific product which will serve as a solution. I don't trick or deceive or bullshit anyone - I talk to them about what they need and how I can help satisfy that need. Sales is, at its core, about solving asymmetry of information. It is about helping customers understand exactly what their problem is and how a particular product is the best way to solve that problem.### Human: Last time I trusted a salesman I ended up wasting a couple grand. I even realize she definitely was trying to help, I don't blame her. Heck I even wanted to believe that for once I could be sold on something I'd actually value. But I learned to disregard information from a source trying to make a profit. Ultimately it's going to induce a bias. The information bias could much better be tackled by reducing societal complexity, reducing the need to sort through all the "options" capitalism cooks up to sell. As well as using aggregated system of information like reviews.### Assistant: > Last time I trusted a salesman I ended up wasting a couple grand. I even realize she definitely was trying to help, I don't blame her. Heck I even wanted to believe that for once I could be sold on something I'd actually value. But I learned to disregard information from a source trying to make a profit. Ultimately it's going to induce a bias. Well, then she did a bad job. The customer's of good salesmen don't tend to have buyer's remorse like you did. Good salesmen understand the needs of their customers and help ensure that they get the product that will fit their needs the best. I have personally walked away from more deals than I can count in my career because I knew that my solution wasn't in the client's best interest. I care about having customers for life, and that mean caring more about their solution than my commision. Sure, not all of us are like that, but there are bad apples in every barrel. There are some engineers out there that put malicious code in their work, but I'm not going to assume that every engineer is like that. There are some cooks that spit in their food, but I'm not going to assume that every cook is like that. Why is it then fair to assume that every salesman is out to screw you? >The information bias could much better be tackled by reducing societal complexity, reducing the need to sort through all the "options" capitalism cooks up to sell. There are only options because there are so many different types of problems and so many different preferences that consumers have. As a general rule, consumers create products - products don't create consumers. We have multiple automobile manufacturers and models because the original Model T didn't meet everyone's needs perfectly; a new car was created by a different company which met the needs of a different group of people better and was thus a better product for them. Capitalism encourages companies to compete with each other so as to best satisfy the consumer's needs. The products get better, safer and cheaper - all benefits to you as the buyer. >As well as using aggregated system of information like reviews. That does work well, but only when we are dealing with a user base who has an analogous set of needs. If you are buying a toaster, then that is probably a fair assumption to make - most people's toast problem has a common solution. You can then trust those reviews to sell you on why their particular toaster. When the problems get more complex, the solution isn't always clear. You can't trust that you should buy a Prius or a Dell laptop or a pair of Levi 501's just because ProductReviewGuy325 says that they worked for him. You need input on your specific problem from someone who is an expert in the needs that a particular product satisfies. That is where I come in.### Human: > There are some engineers out there that put malicious code in their work, but I'm not going to assume that every engineer is like that. There are some cooks that spit in their food, but I'm not going to assume that every cook is like that. Why is it then fair to assume that every salesman is out to screw you? Not entirely a valid comparison. I don't assume every programmer puts malicious code in or every cook spits in their food because there is no personal incentive for them to do so. In a situation like that, of course they will generally act in the best interest of the consumer. In the same vein, I don't assume every salesman is out to screw me. I assume every salesman is out to make a profit, and the more sales they make, the more they profit. In that atmosphere, of course they will not always act in their consumer's best interest--not maliciously, but when all you have is a product, every situation that can be shaped to be solved by that product will be shaped that way. A sale is almost always better for a salesman than no sale, and good intentions or no, that means that customers will sometimes be pressured into buying things they ultimately do not need. Salespeople have a place, of course, but it's almost impossible for me to truly trust information given by someone with a vested financial interest in a certain outcome. It can be done better and with less pressure by disinterested third parties.### Assistant: I suppose that's fair. I won't deny that sales can attract sleazy people because there is direct reward for sleaziness, even if it is only fleeting. Good salespeople tend to gravitate to higher end sales, as there is more reward for long term relationships which benefit from honesty and customer focus. Sadly, most people never interact with those salesmen, knowing only those that care about the singular deal at all costs. For what I do, relationships matter. Sure, I have an interest in selling you my product, but my bigger interest is in being able to sell it to you again later down the road.### Human: Yeah, I can definitely see that there would be a difference between short-term and long-term sales. I haven't really interacted with salespeople outside the group of "wanting to sell me something right now and will never see me again" but what you describe sounds much nicer.