Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: CMV: Killing your henchman to demonstrate a point is poor leadership.### Assistant: >Otherwise it's bad for business and lowers morale. Counter Example: Stalin killed tens of thousand of his supporter and henchman, for faults real and imagined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge_of_the_Red_Army_in_1941 etc. etc. Yet he was (almost) universally loved in Russia until his (natural) death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_cult_of_personality In fact, many Russian still love and miss Stalin: http://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,,1476075,00.html Other examples: Mao, Kim Il-sung, and many many other dictators.### Human: You picked the worst example possible. The only reason the Nazis got a chance at beating the soviet union was because of the great purges Stalin ordered. He chose to keep dumb but loyal officers over smart and experienced ones, and that almost cost him his whole country. Millions of Russians died because the Red Army was a joke just after the purges, they got the manpower and the resources but not effective leadership.### Assistant: Only like 5% of Red Army leadership was "purged," and those purges were actually mostly layoffs, not executions. In fact, most of the officers "purged" were later allowed to re-enlist.### Human: I swear I just read that it was 90% on some other sub. Now I have to go back through my history and find that…### Assistant: During the Cold War, it was estimated 30-50%, and also assumed that they were all executed. Since the fall of Soviet Union, and records being made public, it has been found that none of that was true, and that the number of Red Army officers was very underestimated. About 3-7% of Red Army leadership was purged, and they were almost all just temporary layoffs during Trotsky's anti-Stalin attempts, to get the Red Army back under control. I'm not trying to defend Stalin or the USSR, but this subject has had a lot of misinformation surrounding it, and isn't quite as serious as the Dracula-esque story we've heard so often. Edit: Source - Stephen Lee, European Dictatorships 1918-1945, page 56.

### Human: CMV:i think every drug should be legal### Assistant: > i don't want the goverment to tell me what's good for me or not Luckily when it comes to prescription drugs, it's doctors telling you and not the government. Making all drugs (medicines) non-prescription would be a disaster. Becoming a doctor is hard mainly because you have to learn a huge volume of facts about the human body. A lot of these facts relate to what medicines to prescribe when, but more importantly, when NOT to prescribe them. For the wrong person or wrong condition, certain medicines are deadly. If people could access any medicine, and take it, depending on their own opinions, you'd have people checking WebMD, mis-diagnosing themselves, and then dropping dead the next day because they took the wrong medicine. Doing this would kill way more people than it would save. >every person should be responsible for their own actions With regard to recreational drugs I agree with you. But we have to consider the potential for people to poison each other. Some drugs are so potent or so toxic that it's difficult to argue that access should be unrestricted. Suppose you could get high by taking tiny doses of Strychnine (a deadly poison). I don't think the liberty argument "I can put whatever I want into my body" outweighs the fact that Strychnine is otherwise only useful as poison used to murder human beings. So with that small exception, I would agree. But the point is, with any substance, you have to weigh its emergent danger against freedom. For example, we allow people to own guns, but not machine guns or bombs. I think an equivalent principle should apply with drugs, NOT "everything is legal" but "everything remotely sane is legal"### Human: >With regard to recreational drugs I agree with you. But we have to consider the potential for people to poison each other. I don't think we do need to consider that. If somebody is willing to poison somebody else I think they'd be more than willing to obtain an illegal substance (illegal by current law, not proposed by OP). In other words, I don't think making a drug more accessible would increase homicides, as homicidal people already don't have respect for the law. It might increase accidental overdoses, but in this case I agree with OP, that's the responsibility of the user (and maybe the distributor in a legal market)### Assistant: The more barriers you put up, the harder it is for people to commit a certain action. You're talking about premeditated murder. Yes, those people won't be deterred by the legality of certain means, because they will find something that works for them. However, in the case of a passionate crime, committed because of a blind rage, you're wrong. Say that your partner files for divorce. This upsets you so much that you immediately go out and get something to kill him/her with. Having deadly poisons for sale will make it a lot easier to actually do it. If you're unable to buy them at a store, you create another barrier, and it takes longer before you are able to commit the murder. The longer you have time to think, the larger the chance is that you will reconsider. In this case, disallowing people access to deadly drugs will lower the crime rate. TL;DR: You're right for premeditated murder, but for a spur-of-the-moment crime it'll raise the chance of success.### Human: If you have to go out of your way to get supplies it's already not a spur-of-the-moment thing### Assistant: Not necessarily.. If I decide right now I want fast food, but I'm at home, is it not a spur of the moment thing still? Or if I decide right now to go to Paris? Both scenarios involve me going out of my way, but they're decided in a split second. The idea of spur of the moment is that we decide quickly, and immediately go into execution. The duration of the execution is something entirely different.### Human: I'd call the decision spur of the moment, but not the carrying out of said plan. Poisoning in general is a premeditated thing to do, I think the exception to this would only be if you were already preparing food/drinks with some poison already close at hand.

### Human: CMV:Reddit's choice to remove visible up/downvote subtotals enables vote manipulation### Assistant: I agree that getting rid of that system *is* a poor choice, however, for different reasons. I am speaking directly to (and agree with) your assertion that we should be concerned with "the perspective of informing readers". Your example of [+40/-60] is a good example of why the system should be replaced by the older version and why brigading is a good thing. Sub-communities on Reddit are very sheltered, and a vast majority will be life-time subscribers to whatever mentality is being flung around that sub-eculture. But, if you allow the trolling arms and fingers of brigaders to go around and downvote a shit-ton of posts (in effect, losing out on karma points that mean absolutely fuck-all in both reality and online), then what you're left with is a need to investigate why it was down voted and what are the arguments and the mentality of such a sub-community. If you could somehow stop *all* brigaders magically, then all you'll be left with is a group of glad-handed Redditors patting each other on the back without giving a second thought as to if their views are correct, incorrect, or needs adjusting.### Human: >Your example of [+40/-60] is a good example of why the system should be replaced by the older version and why brigading is a good thing. Wait, what? This could be an interesting discussion, but I have to say that I think it is outside the scope of this CMV. Reddit has an anti-brigading policy. That's really I think as far down this rabbit hole as we need to travel for this discussion.### Assistant: Sorry, you quoted the topic sentence without the context of the justification that followed it. I decided to focus more on your *comment* section than your *header* because I didn't find them to overlap enough. And I have to point out the "Reddit has an anti-brigading policy". This is true, but it's not an argument. I agree it exists, and in the justification of the topic sentence, I (tried to) communicated the reason the policy shouldn't exist or shouldn't be so strict.### Human: > This is true, but it's not an argument. That's fair, but an argument on this topic would, I feel, not be about the topic I wanted to discuss for this CMV: whether or not removing up/downvote subtotals enables or hampers brigading. You can think brigading is good in a moral sense, but it's still quite interesting if we conclude here that Reddit thinks or at least advertises that it thinks that brigading is morally bad, yet takes actions that end up enabling brigading. Right?### Assistant: Yes, you're correct. I suppose my problem is that this change in system doesn't enable brigading because brigading was a thing before the system change. I *acutally* know what you mean is an increase in brigading, but there aren't numbers to measure (at least that we can measure) to either prove or falsify it.### Human: > I acutally know what you mean is an increase in brigading, but there aren't numbers to measure (at least that we can measure) to either prove or falsify it. We both know it, though. And Reddit's internal numbers bear it out, I'm sure. Using only public data, we can chart the growth of certain brigade-centric communities, including off-site communities, over time to corroborate. But anyway, yeah, everyone knows anyway. So why are they taking the actions they are? It doesn't make a lot of sense, at least in comparison to what they are telling us, does it?### Assistant: Like I said, I think it's making themselves appear more "corporate friendly".### Human: Yup. Another way to say it: Fake news.### Assistant: Reddit isn't a news site, it's a news aggregator.### Human: Same difference.

### Human: CMV: Shakespeare was meant to be enjoyed as a play not as a reading assignment.### Assistant: I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be taught in schools the way it is. It shouldn't be read by students who haven't watched it as a play. But that isn't because reading it has no value in general. It's extremely valuable for deep analysis of the work. [Here's a video on Eminem's mastery of rhyme.](https://youtu.be/ooOL4T-BAg0) Imagine if in 400 years students who speak late postmodern English were told to read the lyrics to that song and analyze them the way we read Shakespeare. They'd hate it. But do you think they would really get the full impact of it exclusively from listening to it without having it pointed it out to them? There are active and passive media. Passive ones like plays and song recordings allow us to sit back and enjoy a work. But if we miss something along the way it keeps going without us. Active reading allows us to notice the subtle things that make it great. Watching it can be a great experience. But reading it allows us to understand what makes it great. And from there it allows us to recognise the same things in other works. But that is pretty meaningless to someone that is forced to read it without understanding why it's great.### Human: I don't know if I agree that active consumption necessarily allows us to understand what makes something great. Let's consider the TV show Breaking Bad. I think by all reasonable accounts it's a pretty simple show that is done extremely well. It is easy to follow, but it has extremely engaging characters, a riveting plotline, and a few other elements that make it really an easy show to enjoy. I did a project in college where I analyzed some more subtle things like the lighting in the show, the clothing characters wore, etc, and it did not really make me think the show was any greater than I thought it was before. I think that also applies to Shakespearean plays which are primarily simple, plot driven entertainment.### Assistant: Shakespeare had a fantastic understanding of language, wit, pacing, meter, and writing. The upshot of this is that his works make for fantastic vehicles to teach writing and literature, as well as things like active reading and analysis. A teacher's job is to teach you these things, which can only be taught through reading and discussion thereof.### Human: > simple, plot driven entertainment. Seriously, that's the last thing Shakespeare is. If that were the case, Romeo and Juliet is spoiled in the prologue.### Assistant: You don't think so? When you read/saw the comedy of errors or twelfth night, was your first thought that it was a piece of literary genius? Mine certainly wasn't. When you read Hamlet or The Merchent of Venice, did you think that it was written in a more sophisticated way then most modern dramas that we chalk up as "candy watching"? I didn't really think so. Maybe some of his plays had more meaning but I certainly think the ones I read were very simple and plot driven. Especially compared to some other plays that are taught in the American school system (Death of a Salesmen).### Human: This strikes me as a manifestation of the "Seinfeld is not funny" problem. Basically, the idea is that people who consume a classic work far after its heyday will not get as much out of it. Not because it isn't genius. But because a thousand derivatives of it exist and so you have likely seen it all before. I have a soft spot for old comedies (Much older than Seinfeld). I Love Lucy, Hogan's Heroes, M*A*S*H*. One thing you quickly notice when watching these is that all the humour is familiar. But not because it is not original. Because it was GENIUS and everyone else copied it. There is still merit to the "original" however (Yes Shakespeare reused existing stories. But usually with massive changes). The fact is that as many times as a soap opera tries to do Hamlet, they never manage it well. Hamlet is probably one of the best depictions of insanity in all literature. It genuinely makes it so every single scene the character is in could be either acting or legitimate madness. None of the derivative works do that nearly so well. Nor do they match the prose of something like "To be or not to be.". That speech is literally a guy contemplating suicide and it is STILL beautiful.

### Human: CMV: The view "taxation is theft" is fundamentally childish### Assistant: With a lot of these style of arguments the big issue is that the maker of said argument sets up a strawman. So let's look at someone who actually believes taxation is theft. http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/18/taxation-is-theft >Here's an example you've heard before. You're sitting at home at night, and there's a knock at the door. You open the door, and a guy with a gun pointed at you says: "Give me your money. I want to give it away to the less fortunate." You think he's dangerous and crazy, so you call the police. Then you find out he is the police, there to collect your taxes. >The framers of the Constitution understood this. For 150 years, the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government land and assessments to the states for services rendered. It rejected the Hamiltonian view that the feds could take whatever they wanted, and it followed the Jeffersonian first principle that the only moral commercial exchanges are those that are fully voluntary. So, they believe that the government should earn money via voluntary transactions that people can chose to refuse, not via guns to heads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport And things like roads would probably be run by companies under government franchises, paying money to the government and extracting a toll. Tariffs on certain goods, like petrol, were common too. If like many libertarians, you see the government as an oppressive force (and 25% of prisoners worldwide are held in USA prisons, about 1% of the USA populace) then going back to a voluntary model could seem reasonable. Of course, you and many others do support welfare (and I do) and disagree, but their perspective is hardly childish and it would be easy enough to fund some of the government without theft style taxation.### Human: I think one of the major problems with running that argument is that only a small part of the taxes goes to welfare. Most of it is to the benefit of everyone (roads, police, military, fire service, healthcare (going outside the US for this one), education, etc.). Refusing to pay any taxes at all is therefore analogous to theft by the same logic, because you're taking money from the government, which has in turn taken money from other people, without giving some money back. It's not the best analogy, but then neither is 'taxes is theft'.### Assistant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png About a quarter goes to social security (which they don't like, and see as a ponzi scheme) heathcare (they didn't like obamacare) and the military (which they tend to see mostly as a force to invade middle eastern countries) and only 19% is for other things. When they describe theft they tend to mean people with guns coming and demanding you pay them money. Refusing to give people money wouldn't be defined as theft by that logic.### Human: The government coming with guns to take your money if you don't pay your due taxes would be more aptly described as defending against theft, rather than theft itself. Benefitting from things the government has paid for with tax money, without having paid taxes yourself (despite being obligated to do so by law, being a citizen under that government), can be defined as theft, so I wouldn't call taking the money by force theft. But then again, who said they used sound logic to come to their conclusions?### Assistant: It's not really voluntary to benefit from things the government has paid for. An involuntary benefit that you can't avoid while being a functional member of society is more controversial. Likewise, you could define a mafia boss who breaks a shopkeeper's legs for not paying their dues as someone defending against theft- they are stopping other gangs from stealing from the shop, and the person is obligated by gang law to pay fees, and they are a citizen under their authority- but most wouldn't.### Human: A better analogy would be landlords forcing tenants to pay rent, by threatening to throw them out if they don't. After all, it's their property that they're renting out. As a tenant you make a deal with the landlord. Pay this much every this often in return for this room and these amenities. Break that deal and you're on the street. Mafias do not usually legally own the territories in which they operate, and those that do still have to abide by county, state, and federal law. Breaking someone's kneecaps is not legal anywhere in the US, far as I know. It is, however, legal for the government to use physical force to seize property (within reason, there are plenty of laws which apply even to the government seizing property). TL;DR: Breaking someone's kneecaps is not the same as appropriation of their property, even if both are due to that someone not paying taxes. I'm bad with words (and English isn't my first language, which doesn't help), but I hope I got my point across.

### Human: CMV: Relationships with large intelligence gaps are unlikely to be fulfilling### Assistant: This is not necessarily true, as it depends on what both parties want out of their partner. A physicist may get plenty of mental stimulation at work and with his friends, and may not be looking for a partner to engage in scientific discussion with. He may want a partner who is primarily kind and nurturing, good at raising children, good at helping him relieve stress. This partner may want the same from him and may be willing to put up with, or even enjoy, his nerdiness. It comes down to a case by case scenario. Love is extremely complicated and it's hard to say that one single factor is either necessary or sufficient for compatibility.### Human: Perhaps this is true for some people, but let's say the physicist sees physics as being something near spiritual for him (as it is for many scientists). Wouldn't he be a bit disheartened if he tried talking to his wife or husband about it and getting back simply a blank stare and just a "That's nice, sweetheart"? I am not sure if this is true for most nerdy people, but wouldn't a good portion be somewhat bothered after a while?### Assistant: You can certainly set up these situations that don't lead to fulfilling relationships as you've done here, but to then say that it's the norm is probably not accurate. The success of a relationship and what it provides to the participants is a pretty complex, multi-faceted thing.### Human: ∆. I guess I thought my mentality was more common than I thought and there are perhaps more people out there who would be fine with their partner not know much about their intellectual pursuits.### Assistant: To me it's not about my partner knowing about my specific intellectual pursuits, it's about her being someone I can respect. Intelligence is vital in that regard for me, but not field-specific knowledge.

### Human: CMV: I am Voting No to Scottish Independence### Assistant: You are a small country yes. Yet, in this regard, size does not need to matter much. Populationwise you are approximately the same size as Denmark and bigger than Norway. Especially Norway is known as a very rich country. While oil may not last forever, 50 years is a long time. Enough time to build a stable economy and society. During those 50 years it would be a good idea to focus on other exports/things to make money of off, of course. I cannot speak of Alex Salmond, since I do not know who the guy is. edit: name### Human: The question I pose is exactly what is the justification for independence in the first place? What will it do to benefit the Scottish ethnic group? Are they "oppressed" or under represented by the UK/The English by any huge amount? No, I don't think so. The primary Scottish separatist party supports multiculturalism anyway, so it really raises the question as to exactly why they think separating Scotland from the UK is justified if they're totally okay with Scotland not being majority ethnic Scottish. It boggles my mind.### Assistant: Oppressed is a strong word for it but there is a ring of truth to it. If Scotland voted for its own government they would (almost) never elect the conservative party yet Scottish people are regularly governed by a conservative government in Westminster. There are a few other things that Scottish people consistently vote for but the Uk as a whole don't, like free higher education.### Human: The scary thing for us English folk is that if Scotland gains independence the chances of a majority vote for Labour in the next 5-10 years are incredibly slim unless unforeseen events take place. Just look at the voting statistics in the last election when you take Scotland out of the equation.### Assistant: If you take Scotland out the equation the results of the last 50+ years of general elections remain largely unchanged. This is one of the single biggest reasons that I'm voting Yes. Source: http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/### Human: Thanks for the link: that was an interesting read and it was cool to see the actual sourced breakdown of Labour votes with/without Scotland (seeing the exact makeup of votes and their evolution would be an even cooler piece of data)... However, when you state "largely unchanged", you are conveniently omitting the fact that the "unchanged" part is mainly the early post-war period, whereas the past 20-some years would have been a different story, especially the last (and possibly the next) elections. But even in cases where the party may not have changed, I would argue that having a stronger majority may have emboldened the tories toward more hardline conservative choices (e.g. 5 more years of Thatcher). Also, party lines do not tell the full story: many laws may pass or not, based on internal dissension within one party or the other. But I agree with the premise of the post you linked: misrepresentation is no fairer in that direction than in the other. And this comes down as a fairly strong argument in favour of independence.

### Human: CMV:The American tendency to sacrifice sleep (for no good reasons) is a subtle form of torture that has been accepted and normalized.### Assistant: A few things here: 1. Torture is something that is done by one, to another. We don't use the term "torture" - and with good reason - for any sort of "self harm". Why should we here? 2. This creates a massive terminology problem even if we do accept this as torture, which is that everything one does or does not do that is sub-optimal with regards to health and happiness becomes torture. I have then tortured myself by not going to the gym, by not eating well, etc. We don't actually have medical evidence that moderate sleep deprivation over long periods is even as harmful as eating red meat. You have to get into the sleep disorder zone to start seeing serious health impacts.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Right, but we call structural violence "structural violence". You're not proposing a super-category of torture, qualified as "self-torture". I also take exception with the idea that "change of action" is what makes something torture. Torture _is_ the act, not the movement from non-act to act. If I'm beating someone from the time they are born until they are 30 I'm torturing them, period...not only if they have a long history of non-torture and then I start beating them. It's actually pretty important that actions are torture, not changes in actions. Even further, it's literally worse for the couch potato to continue being sitting on the couch then it is for the active athlete to start sitting on the couch. Yet, the later is "torturing", but not the former? Super funky, and makes the term "torture" almost empty.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: So...keeping yourself miles away from a better version of yourself is torture? We now live in your absurd world where I move from being not tortured to being tortured simply by imagining a thing I could do to be a better version of myself and then not actually doing it. Literally nothing in the world has changed, other than my (or perhaps your!) idea of being better. In 1993 I didn't realize that eating carbs was bad for me, and then our ideas of what is a healthy diet changed and now I'm torturing myself eating the exact same thing I was in 1993. Does that really warrant the use of the term "torture". No. It's not only non-sensical, it defies some of the cornerstones of the word - that it's deliberate and that it satisfies some desire of the one who inflicts it. We essentially _never_ regard things that are done unknowingly as "torture". We might commonly say "that movie was _torturous_", but I hope we'd all acknowledge this is metaphoric, not literal.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: OK. Well...I think I'd be a better version of myself if I called my mom more often. I'm not torturing myself when I fail to do that. Why? Because torture means something, and that doesn't fit with said meaning. It doesn't mean that I'm being the best me by saying it's _not_ torture, it doesn't even mean that I'm being good to myself, it just means it ain't torture, because...it's not torture. Even further, the implication that it is misleading and diminishes the use of that word in actual contexts - we now how to wonder if the person being tortured is doing it to themselves, or if it's a third party.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I certainly admire the effort you have for yourself and your personal development. Truly admirable.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: I think social media/news media outlets are over-sensationalizing racism and sexism, and they are actually making the separation between groups much larger.### Assistant: If you read that article on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, the principal actually makes no point about them being "racist", it's much more sophisticated and nuanced than that (if I had to summarise, it seems more like they're saying that PB&J is tied to a particular, racialised notion of what it means to be 'American', and that actually seems like an intelligent and pertinent development if discussed maturely) Of course that doesn't challenge your view, but I think it points out that it might be more about your interpretation of the media rather than the media itself. For example, that article is titled: > Peanut Butter And Jelly Racist? Portland School Principal Ties Sandwich To White Privilege So in the sense that the principal hasn't really called it racist directly, that's inaccurate, but if you read the article, is it really fair to say that it's trying to "make people afraid of a fucking sandwich"? I would say it's not. And I think that specific example you've given is emblematic of a slightly different problem to the one you've identified: the critical discussion of race and gender in the media is, in some ways *too sophisticated*. It often assumes that the reader is already familiar with theoretical developments that they often are not, and so they lack the 'foundation work' to interpret the discourses used in the media. In that way, we could say the "problem" could be worded in one of two ways: the "problem" is the media badly incorporating an inappropriately academic understanding of certain concepts, or the "problem" is people misinterpreting these concepts (such as, for example, the notion of 'privilege'). As an example of a common misinterpretation: it's entirely fair to say that, for example, that a particular individual's preference for certain varieties of wine is an example of privilege. This does not mean that, for example, everyone who doesn't like Chardonnay is being classist (insofar as 'classist' is a character judgement rather than a technical description), just that class is a factor in their decision.### Human: >CMV: I think social media/news media outlets are over-sensationalizing racism and sexism, and they are actually making the separation between groups much larger ... >You and pretty much everyone are just not educated enough to understand why pb&j is racist. You didn't actually address what OP's concern was; you just talked around one aspect of what he was talking about. He was curious about the sociological impacts of discussing "special groups" ad nauseum. And he's right.### Assistant: > You and pretty much everyone are just not educated enough to understand why pb&j is racist. That's an uncharitable reading at best. Education isn't a linear thing, there is almost no reason why the average person should have a firm understanding of, say, critical theory. I'll admit that what I'm saying targets one particular aspect of OP's view, but I think it's an important part of the wider belief: the 'sensational' aspect of the stories isn't necessarily part of the stories themselves, but because of their language being misinterpreted outside of their intended audience### Human: So if what they're discussing is incomprehensible to their audience, wouldn't it make sense to talk about something else? And to create another venue for their ~~whining~~ critical theory, for people that specifically want that? Furthermore, wouldn't continuing to alienate viewers by talking about stuff going over their heads on this topic, further alienate them from the discussion altogether and even the groups at hand such as other races?### Assistant: It's generally not incomprehensible to their audience, it's people outside that audience who claim that such articles in some way victimise them. At this point, though, you're making business decisions for news sources rather than actually tackling the issue. we're not arguing about what the media ought to do, but about the effects of it.

### Human: I believe the term "friendzone" is just something concocted by bitter and cowardly people and it doesn't actually exist. CMV### Assistant: "Friendzoning" can legitimately happen. The basic idea is that a person of one gender, we'll just say a girl for the purpose of convenience, is only interested in a guy at a platonic level, not a romantic one, while the guy is interested at a romantic level. Because the girl has no interest in pursuing a more sexual or romantic relationship, but values the platonic friendship, she explicitly turns down any chance the guy has to engage in a relationship, but keeps him at a platonic level. To the guy who wants to take things up to a romantic level, this is a friendzoning. The difference between people who are friendzoned and people who simply whine about being friendzoned is that those who are friendzoned have either actually asked or brought up the topic and been turned down in favor of just being platonic friends. Being friendzoned, however, has gained a negative stigma, and I think that's what the source of your opinion is. People tend to always use friendzone in a negative way, but it doesn't have to be. Being friendzoned could be as simple as pursuing a romantic relationship, being turned away in favor of friendship, and then continuing being friends. The difference is you only ever hear about friendzoning by people who complain, because those who don't complain don't talk about their respective "friendzoning".### Human: The friendzone has an extra caveat. The friendzoned often has to watch the friendzoner go through a cadre of terrible mates. Invariably the friendzoner uses the friendszoned's shoulder to cry upon. That is the curse of the friendzone. You watch someone you care about open up to terrible people, and share with them in a way you can only wish for.### Assistant: >The friendzone has an extra caveat. The friendzoned often has to watch the friendzoner go through a cadre of terrible mates. I would say its a different caveat. The "friendzoner" may go through a slew of terrible (at least in the friendzonee's eyes) partners but more importantly categorizing yourself as "in the friendzone" implies that you still hold out hope for a relationship. Generally those "in the friendzone" are still pursuing the other person in some indirect manner - giving presents etc.### Human: I know from the time I spent in the zone that this woman would confide in me all the failings of her boyfriends. So I had that awful feeling in my gut, the biological urge to be with her. I had a crush on her. And after every break up she was sick of men and all men are the same.### Assistant: So you didn't have the balls to either ask her out, ask her to stop confiding about men to you, or move on then. Sounds like you brought it on yourself### Human: That's usually the dark truth about the friendzone, it's borne of cowardice. There was some time that I didn't ask her out, but there is something douchey about asking out a person in a long relationship. Once she was single I did ask her out. She declined on the grounds that I was her best friend and that best friends can't date. Having been shot down I walked out of her life, because a no one needs a best friend pining for them unrequitedly. And no one in that situation needs to hear about the other person's drug dealer fuck buddy. We recently began communicating again. She's with a guy that's narcissistic, borderline unemployed, has anger problems, and at one point bit her during an argument. Her tastes in men is a bit disappointing.### Assistant: >Her tastes in men is a bit disappointing. Then it should be flattering that she *isn't* into you. :)### Human: That is alarmingly astute. I literally never thought of it that way. Actually there was one time. She had gone on break from her fiance and dated/fooled around. I confronted her that she's dating crappy guys to make him jealous while not risking the chance of actually falling for anyone. It was a few years later she admitted that was her motivation.

### Human: CMV: Planned Parenthood is not evil### Assistant: Suppose you knew a guy who did a lot of great stuff. Every year he'd do 97 nice things: "STD and cancer screenings, contraception, and HIV counseling," for example. And then, every year, he would murder three babies. What would your moral judgement of this guy be? Now, this analogy won't apply if you don't think that abortions are murder. That's cool; I don't either. But someone who *does* think that will probably not care very much about the 97% of other stuff Planned Parenthood does.### Human: LOL. Killer argument. Pun intended. But no, I don't believe it's murder. I should have specified that in my OP (I'll edit). Future comment makers, feel free to take an approach to convince me to change my views on abortion altogether, if you wish. But I'm open to any angle to convince me Planned Parenthood is evil, including telling me how tissue donation requested by the mother is evil.### Assistant: I can understand your viewpoint, but there really is only the abortion argument. If you dont consider a fetus alive then you almost certainly dont have a problem with planned parenthood.### Human: Everyone knows the fetus is alive, that's not the point, life is not inherently special, we end life all the time. Everyone agrees it is human as well in the biological sense of the word in that it has human DNA, so yes it is technically alive and technically human, but those things are not what gives human life value nor are they sufficient for moral judgement against ending that life (for example, we willfully end the lives of living humans in persistent vegetative states all the time despite the fact that they are both alive and human, ask yourself why we judge that to be okay and you'll find out why abortions are also okay)### Assistant: >we willfully end the lives of living humans in persistent vegetative states all the time despite the fact that they are both alive and human, ask yourself why we judge that to be okay and you'll find out why abortions are also okay Perhaps the person in a vegetative state agreed in their will, or told others that they didn't want to 'live' like that (ie- it was their *choice* to be taken off life support.) All living things, starting out, have a biological drive to want to live, so it's reasonable to presume that a healthy human fetus also wants to live. Likewise, it's impossible to ask them if they do or don't - so it's safe to presume the former. In other words, you're not garnering any consent from the fetus if it would like to be aborted or not, whereas with someone already on their deathbed, you presumably have (or should have.) It all comes down to consent, and alloting other humans to destroy the lives without any consent is a dangerous and historically deadly precedent. (think of war)### Human: >Perhaps the person in a vegetative state agreed in their will, or told others that they didn't want to 'live' like that We do it even when that is not true... > it's reasonable to presume that a healthy human fetus also wants to live It's absolutely not reasonable to assume that since a pre-conscious anything cannot have any desires at all. >Likewise, it's impossible to ask them if they do or don't - so it's safe to presume the former Do you understand what pre-conscious means?### Assistant: The vegetable analogy should be thrown out, since we remove the life support of people in vegetative states under the assumption that they will not be recovering. A normal fetus is absolutely going to "recover" into a conscious being, so simply ending their life would not be analogous to "pulling the plug".### Human: I think the issue here is you are viewing the woman as a life support machine. A person is not a machine and people are never required to keep another alive by connecting them to their own bodies. The right to live or whatever doesn't mean everyone has to keep you alive.### Assistant: I'm not interested in getting into it. I am of the opinion that if the woman chooses to engage in behavior which may result in pregnancy, then she should be expected to deal with the possible consequences of those actions, just as a man would be expected to deal with the consequences of an unintended child. You don't agree, and I have not interest in changing your mind, you will not be changing mine. The point remains, the fetus/vegetable analogy is flawed.### Human: This "consequences" thing doesn't work. If I break something, do I have to deal with the consequence of it being unusable or do I have to deal with the consequence of have to repaire it? If I get pregnant and really don't want the child, do I have to deal with the consequence of raising the child or do I have to deal with the consequence of needing an abortion?### Assistant: It doesn't work. Even if you get pregnant and carry the child to term, you can't be made responsible for it (unless you're male.) Women give children up for adoption all the time. It's one of the reasons we have orphans.

### Human: I believe that it is unreasonable to take pride in anything but one's own personal accomplishments. CMV### Assistant: I think it was reasonable and helpful for the Civil Rights movement and its cultural descendents to use "Black Pride" as a way to combat racism. In postbellum America, one of the ways in which Whites maintained domination over Blacks was culturally. White culture has been established as superior and desirable, and most cultural and societal institutions either supported and reinforced those views, or at least did not challenge them. Blacks were often made to feel ashamed of their skin color. The Black pride movement rose as a counter to that sentiment. It wasn't a movement saying "Blacks are better than Whites," but a movement establishing equality. There was no distinction made between "I am not ashamed to be Black" and "I am proud to be Black." The latter is more effective, because it's affirmative.### Human: Though the use of "I am proud to be Black" as an affirmative form of "I am not ashamed to be black" may have been an effective rhetorical tactic, I'm not fully convinced that the concept of "Black Pride" is a logically reasonable position. I will not disagree in any way with the idea that it makes an effective *pathos* based tool for organizing a movement to combat racism, I would tentatively contend that any movement that takes on the "[Insert Minority Here] Pride" title inherently takes on characteristics other than "Non-[Insert Minority Here] Shame" by virtue of the term pride. For the sake of better understanding your position, do you believe that "[Insert Majority Here] Pride" (e.g. White Pride, Heterosexual Pride, Male Pride, etc.) movements are justifiable, so long as they do not take the form of "[Majority members] are better than [Minority members]"? If not, then if [Insert Minority Here] ever became a cultural majority, would [Insert Minority Here] movements inherently and immediately become unjustified? (Note: I'm absolutely opposed to racism. Just as I don't believe someone should take pride in their race, I similarly don't think anyone should be made to feel ashamed for their race either.)### Assistant: The problem with "[majority] pride" is the history behind it. One cannot simply say "White Pride" or "White Power" without associating themselves with oppression, because those were the catchphrases of oppression. In the United States, there is not a history of cultural or societal oppression *against* the cultural and societal majority. If there was a time in which minorities became a majority, I don't think they would become inherently or immediately unjustified, because they don't carry same stigmas. Again, "White Pride," "Straight Pride," and most other off-putting "[majority] Pride" catchphrases have a history of oppression attached to them. There are many, many people working to make America (and the world!) a more egalitarian place, in which no one is made to feel inferior because of their skin color or other factors beyond their control. And they may be using "[minority] Pride" as a motto. But they're using in the "you are as good as anyone else" sense, not the "you are better than everyone else" sense.### Human: Would it be reasonable to use "White Pride" in China, then, where white people are a minority and it doesn't have the same connotations? EDIT: Also, another point. If, hypothetically, all stigmas systemic, social and individual against black people were to magically disappear, would they be justified in still using Black Pride? At that point, the "Non-Black Shame" meaning becomes redundant.### Assistant: I'm not aware of Whites being made to feel inferior to non-Whites in China. From what I understand, most anti-American or anti-Westerner sentiment is due to specific acts by foreign governments, such as supporting Tibet. If there is a need for Whites to assert a level of agency they don't currently have in Chinese society I don't think it's unreasonable, if the sentiment is used for positive purposes.### Human: I just picked that as an example of a country with a non-White racial majority mostly because I had heard of the term "[gwei lo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gweilo)" which made it come to mind first. Whether or not there is any sort of systematic or cultural anti-white sentiment there, I don't have enough knowledge in that area to say for sure. I could have just as easily picked a hypothetical country populated by blue skinned people who hate white people.### Assistant: I think this helps demonstrate my point: in a world in which everyone is equal and everyone treats everyone else with respect, pride may not have a place in society. But we do not live in such a world, and in real life, pride can be a useful tool to help marginalized segments of the population gain agency and self-determination. Also, just because there's a racial slur for Whites in China doesn't mean they're oppressed. There are plenty of slurs for Whites in America. They just don't carry the same weight as the n-word, because they're not attached to hundreds of years of violent oppression.### Human: >I think this helps demonstrate my point: in a world in which everyone is equal and everyone treats everyone else with respect, pride may not have a place in society. But we do not live in such a world, and in real life, pride can be a useful tool to help marginalized segments of the population gain agency and self-determination. Understandable. At this point, it's a simple matter of my viewing "pride" meaning "non-shame" as something distinct from the type of pride I'm talking about with respect to my view. A language which had individual words for each possible logical concept would have different words for the two types of pride we're talking about. >Also, just because there's a racial slur for Whites in China doesn't mean they're oppressed. There are plenty of slurs for Whites in America. They just don't carry the same weight as the n-word, because they're not attached to hundreds of years of violent oppression. I know and acknowledge that. That word was simply what led to me pulling out China as a random example of a non-white majority nation, as the word is topical.

### Human: CMV: There is nothing wrong or immoral with saving money, retiring early, and living a low-cost / low-income lifestyle.### Assistant: As some self-fashioned form of a nihilist, I'm loath to contend that anything is wrong or immoral, at least without context. So please allow a slightly tailored response to your CMV. It might not be *wrong* or *immoral* for you to save money and retire early, but society is well within reason to discourage such behavior. You are, after all, part of a society, one which functions on the assumption that each member will contribute to the overall welfare of the society. For you to retire early, even on your own savings and money, is for you to remove your potential from the pot. Simply put, you are not being put to your highest and best use. If you're looking for an analogue, consider property jurisprudence in the US. Much of property jurisprudence serves the argument that property should be put to its highest and best use. Of course it respects individual property rights, but it discourages waste and encourages transactions which will develop a plot or put some land to better use. This is why we have things like eminent domain. So I would make the same argument. If you retire early and live on savings alone, you are not contributing to society. You are not being put to your highest and best use. As a society, we should discourage such behavior. Not outlaw, but discourage.### Human: You're skipping the part where each persons' contribution is unique, though. If the person is out spending 25-30k a year, they're contributing *tons* more than someone who works and makes half that much, then spends most of it on housing. You can't grief someone for not "making/spending" as much as they could, when there are those who make/spend less. They're still contributing, more so than a minimum wage worker.### Assistant: No, I'm not skipping anything of the sort. I'm not outlining a competition whereby we determine who can contribute the most. Instead, I'm outlining a society that encourages each member to contribute to the extent of *their individual* potential. Thus, if Person A's highest and best potential contribution is X and Person B's is Y, then society should encourage A and B to seek X and Y, respectively. Whether X>Y or X<Y is not a consideration. I'm sure this smacks of Marxism to someone out there, but that's far from the intent. I think it's perfectly reasonable and desirable that we allow each person to determine the manner of their contribution, whether it be through painting murals for local schools, through saving lives in the ER, through a 9-to-5 at the plant, or whatever. But society is nevertheless perfectly within reason to discourage those who have actively determined not to contribute and, furthermore, to *encourage* all others to constantly seek to attain their highest and best use toward society.### Human: Society has no right to expect me to take a 90k a year job if a 30k a year job makes me happy. What's the difference between that and retiring if you're still spending money - you may even be *producing*, just not for wage.### Assistant: This is not about rights. Take that simplistic analysis elsewhere. What I'm arguing is that it is *reasonable* for society to *discourage* someone from actively refusing to seek their highest and best contribution to society. Also, I did not intend to explain the entirety of social interaction in one reddit post. Certainly society should, and does, make other considerations that factor into this calculation. Happiness could certainly be one consideration, especially if increasing happiness in turn maximizes the welfare of society or if, gasp, we hold maximizing happiness as the end goal of society. Furthermore, this is not simply a monetary calculation. Notice I used X and Y, not $X and $Y. A $30k/year job can certainly contribute more than a $90k/year job. At one point, that was the idea behind public service: taking less money to work in government and serve your community.### Human: This is a discussion about morality. Society can encourage or discourage - but is it immoral for it to think there's something wrong with retiring early, such that it should be penalized/prohibited? No, because it's a right to do so. I would be immoral if there would be shown to be something inherently harmful, but it's not, and we find *numerous* similar activities to be wholly moral, such as working a lower wage job, *not to serve the community*, but because you enjoy it.### Assistant: Have you read [my original post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/24x9n0/cmv_there_is_nothing_wrong_or_immoral_with_saving/chbp2a7)? Right there, in the first line, of a post you responded to, is my statement about the morality involved in this discussion. Oh, and also, right there, in the last line, of a post you responded to, I mention that society should not outlaw retiring early, but merely that it should *discourage* such behavior. So this penalized/prohibited talk is completely missing the discussion. So great, 0 for 2 in the first sentences. How about the third? Ah yes, it's a *right* to retire early. Well, I'm not sure you know what the word *right* means. Please, tell me from whence this *right* to retire early is derived? Fourth and final sentence. Last chance. Well, aside from it being mostly incomprehensible and riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, we still have: 1) another mention of morality despite my first post, 2) some harm calculation out of left field, and 3) some implied utility calculation which is neither clear nor explained in relation to the concepts discussed in 1) and 2) above. I'm sorry, but there's just not much of anything productive in your post here. I'm afraid this will have to be my last response to you. Please re-read my original post carefully if you're looking to understand my argument. Cheers.

### Human: CMV: The world is run by criminals### Assistant: Can you actually define 'criminal' here? Because it seems very vague### Human: The word criminal isn't vague. The people I spoke of egregiously broke the law. I realize now I was worked up after seeing the movie, but I still entirely believe what I was saying. I just didn't say it the best way possible. They broke the law. People were harmed in some way, badly, and there were little to no consequences.### Assistant: > The word criminal isn't vague Yes it is, because its pretty easily argued that until you're convicted of a crime, youre not a criminal. You are neither a judge, nor jury so you cant say some one is a criminal and then call your **opinion** not vague.### Human: That's ridiculous. There's not a person on the planet that would know all of the facts on any of the examples I gave and call those people anything other than criminals.### Assistant: You watched one movie (not a documentary) who's main point was to entertain, not to provide impartial facts. As for 2008 financial crisis, exactly what crime was broken and by exactly who? (This could be its own CMV) I think its important to define what a criminal is because in some ways we all are criminals since we all broken some law (we've all speed or jaywalked).

### Human: CMV:Toddlers in Tiaras should be banned### Assistant: I am not in favor of banning things simply because I don't like them. There's plenty of stuff that I don't care for, or that I think is wrong, but I'm not the one participating in them, and that's good enough for me. If you don't like it, then don't be a part of it, but don't start telling other people what they can and can't do.### Human: That's a good point! Not being a part of it is one way to handle it, but I was just curious about the actual purpose of the show other than contributing to society's ideals and I guess it goes for many other tv shows as well### Assistant: I certainly agree with the qualms you have with this show. It is disgusting that parents subjects their daughters to that kind of environment. However, simply banning the program is not a proper solution. Firstly, it isn't feasible, and secondly, it does not solve the issue. The stigmas that these parents attach to their daughters are an underlying part of society. They will not simply go away because the show isn't aired. I understand that the show reinforces the behavior of such parents, but the best way to strip the show of its power is to do what we are doing here. That is, to clearly and logically articulate why the show is so bad and the damage it does to young girls.### Human: >Firstly, it isn't feasible Why? Similar things are banned in France.### Assistant: It's (effectively) speech, thus protected by the first amendment.

### Human: CMV: Paying attention to people's intelligence is not necessarily any less shallow than paying attention to their looks.### Assistant: Attraction and being attractive are not, in and of themselves, shallow things. We call people shallow when they are obsessed with these things, for example the "airhead" (not gender specific) who cares about nothing but their looks and social status. This applies to intelligence. You'd consider someone in your university classes shallow if they lusted after the lecturer, based solely on his/her qualifications ("*Two* PhDs? Hawt."). In this case, they know almost nothing about their lecturer, and to pursue anything with them would be shallow ("I don't care about your biodome collection [biology professor], let's bang"). On the other hand, you can be attracted to someone for their intelligence, but still appreciate the rest of them. Say that guy who painted a beautiful vista in your art class, that's an attractive feature. You start there ("Your painting is amazing, let's talk about it"), and eventually segue into other topics about them ("What do you think about [historical thing/politics/new technology]"). With that attitude, you're beyond being shallow. TL;DR It's only shallow when you only care about a small portion of the traits of a person (for example, their IQ), and ignore or otherwise don't appreciate the rest of the person for who they are.### Human: Well if i had a daughter, id prefer she lusted after a guy for his phd than for his porsche### Assistant: Nowadays, maybe. Historically that'd be a bad choice. The porsche owner is demonstrating that he can acquire an excess of resources, enough to waste them on unnecessary things (conspicuous consumption). In hunter-gatherer days, that would be critical in the reproductive success of your genes through your daughter and her children. Having resources (food, clothing, shelter, protection) increased the odds of success. The PhD, on the other hand, has not demonstrated he can provide for her offspring (and hence successfully spread the copies of your genes). Granted, he has demonstrated he is smart, and if he is a lecturer at a university he possibly has a high status in society and a decent salary (compared to, say, a janitor). These are, of course, the genetic tendencies for women to be attractive to high-status and high-income males. The caveat may be that in the modern world, the porsche owner may tend to be demonstrating that he is interest in attracting many women, because he is so overt at his display. And so he may reduce his overall apparent fitness via the risk that he won't stick with your daughter and won't provide resources in the long term for her offspring. So you may have competing evaluation systems for which is the better option for her. Of course, you are more driven by your cognitive evaluation. Your daughter is more driven by her immediate physiological response, i.e., attraction, which doesn't come from a resume. Of course none of that really matters nowadays anyway, but it is still fun looking at where these instincts and evaluations come from.### Human: Yeah thats all true. At the end of the day you just gotta hope they're not a dingus### Assistant: Yeah and that they have a broat.### Human: > broat. didn't get the reference at first [but i'm sure glad i looked it up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeBEHYrq_gU)### Assistant: Season one and two are 17 bucks on Amazon. Check it out ya dingus!

### Human: I am a scientist, and I believe a god exists. There is nothing wrong with this position, CMV### Assistant: >This entity may have been responsible for the creation of our universe, and it may also have had interactions with our species development-- Although I find that particular idea unlikely. I don't know much about your belief, but this makes it sound like you are a deist. In other words, the god you believe in is not the one found in the Bible, Koran, or other holy books- it may be similar, but not the same exact one. You say you believe that this god is intelligent and benevolent, but not much other than that, so I'm going to guess your belief is relatively vague; there is a god, but we do not or cannot understand its exact nature or desires. If that's the case, then that's what I believed for a while. I believed that, if there was a god, the most respectful thing I could do for it is not accept any characterization of it that don't make sense to me. Outside of pantheism, I haven't found any such characterization. But anyway, if you believe that an intelligent god created the universe and allowed it to mostly work itself, then I would take a moment and ask yourself "why?" In matters of knowledge, the null hypothesis is usually assumed until evidence and experiments prove otherwise. When we've accumulated enough knowledge, we make broad conjectures and theories to tie it together- "faith" follows from empirical knowledge and observations. So why, if you consider yourself a scientist, does it make sense for you to accept something as true without widely supported evidence? For me, I eventually realized it was mostly fear- I didn't want to make any gods angry by denying them, but then I decided that, while I didn't believe in any gods, the only god that would make sense to me is one that didn't care about something as petty as my own personal belief.### Human: > if you believe that an intelligent god created the universe and allowed it to mostly work itself, then I would take a moment and ask yourself "why?" Why not? Does it really have to be more complicated than that?### Assistant: I probably should have been more clear; I meant why would one believe the universe had external origins. It may make sense as a possibility, but we know so little about the existence and nature of the universe that, unless you've been brought up and taught to believe in a god, it doesn't make much sense to me why we should accept that based on what we know. Theists usually explain this through intelligent design, which is a separate discussion, but to me it isn't a satisfactory answer. I think it really only makes sense to people who *want* to believe in a god.### Human: > unless you've been brought up and taught to believe in a god, it doesn't make much sense to me why we should accept that based on what we know. I believe just the opposite, though. I feel like we've been brought up to believe that we can create beautiful and terrible things with the work of our minds and our hands. Why is it such a leap to believe that the beautiful and terrible things we see in the universe aren't, ultimately, the work of other minds and hands? The language of genetics? The laws of physics? The human brain? Why are we so quick to believe those things sprung from chaos and pure chance? Our own happenstance existence in a universe suited to it is the very definition of circumstantial evidence, isn't it?### Assistant: >Why are we so quick to believe those things sprung from chaos and pure chance? That's not really what I believe, chaos and chance are not forces that cause things to happen. It's like how if you watch TV static for an infinite amount of time, eventually pixels will align in such a way that a coherent image might form. The universe behaves predictably (in some ways) but not necessarily toward any particular "goal." Case in point, there are more stars and planets than we can ever count, and it's doubtful that we'll ever be able to inhabit other planets. There is so much of the universe outside our capabilities that I don't think it was all made *just* for us.

### Human: CMV: I believe that if Christians (and many other religious people) thoroughly and objectively examined their own beliefs and religion, they would no longer be religious.### Assistant: Well, how could anyone disprove this view of yours? What kinds of evidence would make you change your mind? Somehow I don't think "I'm smart and examine all my beliefs, and I'm still a Christian" would cut it.### Human: That is a good point, and if someone said that I would probably think that they didn't properly examine their beliefs. I guess I should have been more specific with my title, but they main idea is that traditional belief systems are incompatible with logic. Honestly I would just be happy if someone could answer my specific question regarding sending people to hell, since that has bugged me for a long time.### Assistant: Have you considered the possibility that maybe God isn't "logical"? You seem to be under the impression that an "all good" God would conform to your personal understanding of what it means to be good, and that he or she would be bound to behave in a way that makes perfect sense to you. Are either of those assumptions obviously true? Many Christians believe that the difference between goodness and evil depends directly on God's judgment. In other words: if God decides that it's good for the world to be ordered in a certain way, then it is good for the world to be ordered in that way by definition. To ask *why* it is good is to ask a question whose answer may not be comprehensible by a mortal mind.### Human: > Have you considered the possibility that maybe God isn't "logical"? This argument boils down to an admission that the idea is nonsensical. If your deity is nonsensical then only a fool could believe in it. If you know it is foolish and still believe, then I must assume that you're engaging in nothing more worth than willful self-delusion.### Assistant: >This argument boils down to an admission that the idea is nonsensical. If your deity is nonsensical then only a fool could believe in it. Let's slow down and take a moment to define our terms. A belief is called "rational" when it can be understood as the conclusion of a rational process of justification. If a belief is truly rational, it should be possible for the believer to demonstrate step-by-step (i.e. in the mode of a formal logical argument) that it follows necessarily from supportable premises. A belief is called "irrational" when the believer cannot perform such a demonstration. Notice that this definition concerns the process of arriving at a belief, not the relationship between the product of that process (a belief) and reality. The question of whether or not a belief is rational has nothing directly to do with the question of whether or not it is true. To say that belief in God is irrational because God does not exist would be begging the question. We say that belief in God is irrational only because it does not appear to be the product of a rational thought process. Now we're ready to ask the next question: does holding an irrational belief necessarily make a person a "fool"? I suppose that depends on how we choose to define *that* word. I assume that you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Would you describe that belief as "rational"? Let's see if you can justify it. The conclusion that the sun will rise tomorrow morning does not logically follow from the observation that it has risen every morning in the past. In order to reach that conclusion, we have to introduce a second premise: 1. The sun has risen every morning in the past. 2. The future will resemble the past. 3. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Let's talk about premise number 2. Can it be proven? What leads us to assume that the future will resemble the past? Of course, the future has *always* resembled the past. But isn't it true that we cannot infer a rule from that observation without taking for granted that the rule is independently true? In other words, the conclusion that the future will resemble the past does not necessarily follow from the observation that the future *has* resembled the past. Again, we need a second premise: 1. The future has always resembled the past. 2. The future will resemble the past. 3. Therefore, the future will resemble the past in the future. Do you see the problem? It was originally discovered by the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, and has since come to be labeled "the problem of induction." Hume went on to argue that our belief in causality itself is fundamentally irrational, and is founded on a conditioned reflex no different from that which would later cause Pavlov's dogs to begin salivating every time they heard a bell ring. Do you have an answer for Hume? I doubt it, but let's say you do. Even so, the fact remains that you haven't *always* been able to answer him, and the vast majority of people who believe that the sun will rise tomorrow have never even given any thought to the problem. If an irrational belief is one that is held by a believer who cannot demonstrate that it is the product of a rational process of justification, and anyone who holds such a belief is a fool, then you (along with just about everyone who has ever lived) must be called a fool. Are you comfortable with that?### Human: > Notice that this definition concerns the process of arriving at a belief, not the relationship between the product of that process (a belief) and reality. A convenient definition for those wishing to define a belief in a being that may be fictional as rational, a definition I must reject. You are conflating rational with whether an argument is "valid" rather than whether it is sound". If it does not conform to observable reality, it cannot be a rational belief. Starting with the appropriate premises you can use valid reasoning to reach just about any conclusion, but the chain of reasoning would only be sound if the premises were actually true. If you can conclude multiple contradictory things, it cannot be a rational. The point that I care about is whether the claim that a deity exists is true or not. Someone can dream up a suitable chain of valid arguments based upon flawed premises to conclude that a deity exists, but this says nothing about whether it is true or not. It is a form of sophistry. > The problem of induction. "The future will resemble the past.", not how I would phrase it, but that is unimportant for the moment. This is a very minor but absolutely necessary premise. One of a number required before we can conclude anything beyond "Cogito ergo sum". I am comfortable with having to make that assumption. The alternative, everything is nonsense. The "belief" that the sun will rise in the morning is not at all equivalent to the sort of "belief" that the religious have in their deities, so much so that I dislike using the same word for both. We build a heuristic-based model of the universe around us subconsciously, and predict the future based upon it. Most things we never question because they're not hugely important and we have limited mental resources to spend. The more important the thing, the more we should question it. Of course, in the course of learning science and other forms of structured learning we eventually study many of these things. We learn about the heliocentric model of the solar system, and later a more accurate model still. There are many things I do not have good models of, and I am a fool in these areas of thought. Art for example, I know nothing about art and do not claim to. It would be utterly foolish of me to proclaim a deeply held and heartfelt belief in any subject related to art. Worse, if challenged upon this hypothetical "belief", to double-down and insist upon being correct in the face of evidence and argument. That would amount to self-delusion.### Assistant: >The point that I care about is whether the claim that a deity exists is true or not. It's easy to imagine an irrational thought process that would lead a person to the (presumably true) conclusion that God does not exist. All religious non-Christians reject the existence of the Christian God, but I assume we would agree that they often do so for irrational reasons. As I've already pointed out, to say that belief in God is irrational because God does not exist would be begging the question. If we define the words "rational" and "true" as synonyms, then we cannot coherently claim that reason is the best means of discovering the truth, because the truth is defined as rational automatically. Reason is supposed to give us a way to distinguish between true and false claims, so that would be a pretty serious problem. >Someone can dream up a suitable chain of valid arguments based upon flawed premises to conclude that a deity exists, but this says nothing about whether it is true or not. It is a form of sophistry. You have fundamentally missed the point. If the premises are flawed, then the argument is unsound, and to accept its conclusion would be irrational. >This is a very minor but absolutely necessary premise. One of a number required before we can conclude anything beyond "Cogito ergo sum". I can't see why you would describe it as "very minor," considering the fact that your entire worldview is founded upon it. In any case, nothing you've said changes the fact that it's an irrational assumption. You are willing to make it because it is useful, not because it is necessarily true. >I am comfortable with having to make that assumption. The alternative, everything is nonsense. You're using the word "nonsense" in an extremely imprecise way. As far as I can tell, all you mean by it is that the claim you're referring to is one that you personally do not accept. >The "belief" that the sun will rise in the morning is not at all equivalent to the sort of "belief" that the religious have in their deities They have at least one very important thing in common, which bears directly on this conversation: neither belief can be rationally justified. As you have admitted, there is nothing especially exceptional about that--"most things we never question." But there is really no way around the fact that in failing to question those things--in accepting them *on faith*--we are behaving in a way that is not perfectly rational. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing to behave irrationally from time to time. That's *your* position. My point is that irrational beliefs are not necessarily "nonsensical." Your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, just as it has every morning, is ultimately based on nothing more than a powerful feeling of expectation that the future will resemble the past. A religious person's faith in God is also based on a powerful feeling. That doesn't mean that you should allow yourself to be convinced of God's existence by the testimonies of religious people alone, or even that religious people are right to trust their feelings. All I am trying to make you understand is that it isn't obviously or automatically "nonsensical" to treat intuition as evidence. At the end of the day, all human knowledge depends upon intuition.

### Human: CMV: Columbus day is unjustified as a National Holiday and thus should be removed and replaced with Indigenous Day.### Assistant: > replace it with Indigenous Day which highlights the history of the Natives that once roamed the same land we live on We actually have a [whole month](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Indian_Heritage_Month) dedicated to NA History and Heritage. So what's the point of changing a current holiday to something that's already recognized?### Human: Anecdotal, but I had no idea there was a Native American month, while I have absolutely heard of Columbus Day.### Assistant: Do you really think that changing "Columbus Day" to "Indigenous Day" will increase awareness? The only reason people acknowledge Columbus Day is because they get the day off, no one I've ever known cares about the meaning. Same would happen with an "Indigenous Day".### Human: I don't get Columbus Day off but I still know about it. And yes, yes freaking of course changing the name of a national holiday would increase awareness. Anyway, the goal isn't to increase awareness but instead to not celebrate the man who started the genocide of a group of people.### Assistant: Lots of schools get it off, some businesses. > And yes, yes freaking of course changing the name of a national holiday would increase awareness. Sure, you'll create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care. > Anyway, the goal isn't to increase awareness but instead to not celebrate the man who started the genocide of a group of people. Then the point of the CMV should just simply be "remove Columbus day" rather than replacing it with something that's already celebrated for a *month*. Besides, it's not really his fault that the genocides happened. Blame the myriad of people *after* him that caused all that.### Human: >Sure, you'll create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care. We are taught in school about Columbus day i don't understand why the alternative wouldn't be taught in school. >Then the point of the CMV should just simply be "remove Columbus day" rather than replacing it with something that's already celebrated for a month. That really doesn't matter or change my view. >Besides, it's not really his fault that the genocides happened. Blame the myriad of people after him that caused all that. >*Columbus’ Men Were Rapists and Murderers On Columbus’s first trip to the Caribbean, he later returned to Spain and left behind 39 men who went ahead and helped themselves to Native women. Upon his return the men were all dead. With 1,200 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by Columbus. This is supported by a reported close friend of Columbus, Michele de Cuneo who wrote the first disturbing account of a relation between himself and a Native female gift given to him by Columbus.* [Source](http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/14/8-myths-and-atrocities-about-christopher-columbus-and-columbus-day-151653)### Assistant: > We are taught in school about Columbus day i don't understand why the alternative wouldn't be taught in school. This isn't really on topic with your CMV. Like I said before, we already have an entire month dedicated to NA history. It's not Columbus Day's fault that schools choose not to emphasize NA month. Changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Day doesn't solve your problem. > That really doesn't matter or change my view. It does matter. You wanted a holiday to celebrate NA History. We've done one better and instead of giving the topic a single day we give it a whole month. The fact people ignore it tells you about all you need to know on how people would celebrate an "Indigenous Day". Whether it changes your view or not is up to you. > On Columbus’s first trip to the Caribbean... Killing and enslaving people doesn't equate to Genocide. Genocide is the systematic killing off of a race or group of people. He was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide. Not that I'm saying it's better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to Hitler. Columbus isn't even nearly on his level.### Human: >Killing and enslaving people doesn't equate to Genocide. Genocide is the systematic killing off of a race or group of people. He was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide. Not that I'm saying it's better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to Hitler. Columbus isn't even nearly on his level. He raped, murdered, and abused natives on the basis of location and skin color how is that not genocide?### Assistant: > He raped, murdered, and abused natives on the basis of location and skin color how is that not genocide? It wasn't based on skin color or location. You're extrapolating modern constructs onto past events. He raped and murdered them because he was an explorer finding riches for his Monarch, not because he was racist or intended to wipe out natives. And I believe the murder you speak of would be characterized as battle and warfare.### Human: Idk if The Oatmeal can be trusted as a viable source of information, Columbus apparently traded 9 and 10 year old native girls as sex slaves. You're telling me he would have done the same with European girls? Sounds pretty racist to me. I get that this is not the extermination oriented ideology of someone like Hitler and rather Columbus was just taking advantage of his privilege, but it's still horrific and it's still racism. Evil can be incredibly banal sometimes, I think when we get hung up on the semantics of genocide we are kind of splitting hairs here. It Was on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/location that Columbus raped, murdered, enslaved, and abused. It was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people. This is certainly genocide.### Assistant: > Columbus apparently traded 9 and 10 year old native girls as sex slaves. You're telling me he would have done the same with European girls? This is ridiculous. This appeal to probability is a logical fallacy. To say that if Columbus was "something imaginative and speculative", then he must have done it the way I imagine it, is absolutely ridiculous. >Sounds pretty racist to me >It Was on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/location that Columbus The modern concepts of race, racism, and whiteness did not even exist at the time of Columbus. You are extrapolating modern ideas onto past events, in a way the people would not have been aware of. The early explorers of America described their discoveries as 'Muslim' and "Islamic" and "Oriental" because those were the concepts of strange, otherness, and opposite that the explorers were socially aware of. People often today get hung up on the race/ethnicity whatever. Just because he killed them doesn't mean he thought there lives we're expendable because of their race. Europeans were capable of barbarism against any enemy, white or not. It didn't matter. It had nothing to do with that. It was a people easy to subjugate. Columbus was a sailor for over 20 years before his voyage to America, trading along the coasts of Africa, Iceland, and Europe, maintaining business relationships and being an active merchant. We don't know if he made money by violence beforehand, but we do know he was a merchant. Then he got to America and tried to make riches of his discovery, which of course he failed at, but subsequent explorers sure did. You're blaming Columbus for the actions of millions over hundreds of years. >It Was on the basis of skin color and >It was not a conscious thing It wasn't conscious because such consciousness did not yet exist.### Human: I was simply saying that there is no way Columbus would have treated Europeans the horrific way he treated Natives. Look up the history of Bartolome De Las Casas and you can see there Were in fact examples of a consciousness that accepted the wrongness of men like Columbus and of the genocide of native peoples. To forgive Columbus' actions based on "it was a different time" is the same old excuse but it is a tired one. Columbus' actions may have been accepted but they were not routine. Finally even if we Can say that Columbus' attitude cannot be evaluated in the same context as the modern day, the resulting atrocities committed can and we still should not honor the man. That is, if the concept that native people were not people did not exist in European society at that time, then it is fair to say that European society at that time was fucked up. My points about consciousness are that you don't have to be Intentionally racist, there is a such thing as systemic racism. If Columbus did what he did because it was a people easy to subjugate that is an example of systemic racism brought on my colonialism At the end of the day there are people who see the name of the holiday and are reminded of a man who actively committed the decimation of their people. Whether we can empathize with him or not is moot. There is no reason to celebrate this man any longer.### Assistant: >I was simply saying that there is no way Columbus would have treated Europeans the horrific way he treated Natives. You don't know that. You can't know that. And the pattern intra-violence in European history says differently > Look up the history of Bartolome De Las Casas and you can see there Were in fact examples of a consciousness that accepted the wrongness of men like Columbus and of the genocide of native peoples. I already explained this to another person in this thread. Bartolome is so well known because his observations match our own modern sensibilities, but he in no way exemplifies the prevailing opinion of the day, by a longshot. That's the reason he is the only example. The prevailing attitude was that the sailors and explorers were merchants for their monarch, and their actions were justified by their God and king. Bartolome agreed with former but not with the latter. >To forgive Columbus' actions based on "it was a different time" is the same old excuse but it is a tired one. >Finally even if we Can say that Columbus' attitude cannot be evaluated in the same context as the modern day, the resulting atrocities committed can and we still should not honor the man. Judging him by modern sensibilities is, putting it bluntly, pointless. The commemoration for the Columbian exchange and the discovery of America, not Columbus himself or his action, an event which is probably one of the most important and monumental in human history, is the subject of Columbus Day. That's why it's on the day of America's discovery, and not his birthday. But seriously, commemorate it however you want. >My points about consciousness are that you don't have to be Intentionally racist, there is a such thing as systemic racism. There was seriously, no such thing at this time, and to extrapolate these modern concepts to past events is just bad history. The English killed the Scots and Irish just as eagerly as they killed the native Americans, and it had nothing to do with the color of their skin. >Columbus did what he did because it was a people easy to subjugate that is an example of systemic racism brought on my colonialism No it's not. That was just the way of the world and race never played a factor in ones peoples ability or willingness to subjugate another. That came a hundred years after Columbus died.### Human: No okay I get what you are saying now. Fair enough. I still think he's a wanker and we shouldn't put his name on a federal holiday.### Assistant: Yea, Columbus isn't a really great role model. And when I was younger, we used to get a day off a school. Now it's just another day. it's importance has definitely diminished, while the consciousness and discussion of the more negative consequences of the Columbian exchange has increased. So there's that.

### Human: CMV: Participation Trophies aren't in any way harmful.### Assistant: I don't think it's at all fair to say 'participation trophies aren't in anyway harmful,' and then post for your first point that there is no evidence they are harmful. You basically said people who oppose your view can't claim to be correct because they have no evidence, while claiming your view is correct without any evidence. I think at the very least your argument should be 'there is no evidence participation trophies are harmful in any way.' As it stands now, it seems like you did a pretty good job arguing against your argument. Also: I don't think it makes sense to draw a distinction between losing and failure when it comes to a game. You did lose, of course, but you also failed. Failure is literally a lack of success. If you didn't win, you failed. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is certainly failure.### Human: I think I could have reorganized my post and changed some wording to avoid this exact type of comment. I think we can all agree that there is an existing narrative that states participation trophies are harmful. I believe that claim to be baseless, and also laid out several arguments to the contrary. You're essentially saying "well you can't prove they AREN'T harmful either so..." but that's why I laid out potential benefits. Also, I don't think you understood my point on losing versus failure. Individual failure doesn't always correspond with losing. If the Giants lose to the Cubs but Buster Posey went 4 for 4 and made no errors he didn't personally fail in any way, even tho his team lost. There is a disntction between the two. I could have maybe phrased that better, in addition to some other aspects, but this reply feels very obtuse.### Assistant: >but that's why I laid out potential benefits. And people could say some potential harms. But you decided that an argument isn't valid unless there is proof, which invalidates your own argument. Not trying to be rude, I just think the same rules should apply to you that you are making for others.### Human: This doesn't make sense and idk how else to explain it to you.### Assistant: Not an argument. Also, your thing about losing vs failure is silly. >Individual failure doesn't always correspond with losing. Not what I said. >If the Giants lose to the Cubs but Buster Posey went 4 for 4 and made no errors he didn't personally fail in any way, even tho his team lost. You're talking about two different things: the team and the player. The team lost and failed. Buster succeeded at individual things. It's fine to say that Buster succeeded at X, or that Buster failed at X. An individual failing at something doesn't mean they lost (unless they're playing chess or something), but if a team loses, they failed. It's like a square being a rectangle, but a rectangle not being a square. A loss is always a failure, a failure isn't always a loss. And changing the thing you're talking about (the person vs the team) doesn't make it correct. You might think that what I said is semantics, but your distinction between losing and failure was your entire point for #3.### Human: You're making my point for me tho. A team loss isn't indicative of an individual's successes or failures and thus rewarding those successes or failures doesn't prevent them from experiencing loss, or prevent them from analyzing their own performance independent of the team's.

### Human: CMV: People who say "don't come to me with problems, bring solutions" don't understand problem-solving or don't care about problems.### Assistant: >but to say "don't bring me any issues that you don't have an answer for" is ignorant or willfully dismissive. This is a bit of a misinterpretation. The idea is to promote some level of immediate problem solving. If you come to me with **just** a problem, all you did was report. If you come with even a step in the right direction, you are involved. For example: You enter the breakroom and found the microwave smoking. If you come and say "The microwave is smoking", its much less productive than saying "The microwave was smoking, so I unplugged it. We should call the repairman."### Human: What that mentality breeds though is bad management. Workers should function within their responsibility, but managers help coordinate many people and projects together. It causes management to shirk its responsibility to be the decision makers which is much less efficient than if the workers simply reported a problem and then executed the managers decision.### Assistant: I disagree. The attitude encourages employees to be proactive and creative, as opposed to staying in their boxes.### Human: Having solutions should be encouraged. But when you admonish people when they don't have a solution it's counter productive. I've never worked for someone who believed in always having solution who wasn't a bad manager. They didn't know how to lead so they demanded answers from their employees at all times. It's also a sign of the naive American work ethic that let's them get taken advantage of. If it is my job to report and your job to solve as a manager unless your willing to pay for my extra work done on your behalf I'm not devaluing my time. Productivity is way up, workers are solving plenty of problems but wages remain stagnant.### Assistant: No one's asking you to solve the problem or do someone else's job. The expectations are that a person takes a reasonable step to correct the issue before reporting it. For example, the WiFi is down. Not enough: "Hey boss, the WiFi is down" Too much: "Hey boss, the WiFi is down, so I ordered new routers, installed two repeaters and reset the password" Just right: "Hey boss, WiFi is down, so I called Pete from IT. He,ll be here in 45 minutes"### Human: >No one's asking you to solve the problem or do someone else's job. Managers who strongly advocate problem solving do. Slowly but surely the lines between your responsibility and others gets blurred because you are constantly expected to provide solutions to problems that may not be directly related to you. As you get more work experience you'll see it occur if you pay attention. People naturally problem solve, there is generally no reason to advocate problem solving strongly unless your system is already breaking down. People coming to you regularly with problems and no solutions means the definitions of people's responsibilities have not been made clear or you are not allowing them to act independently. If they were they would simply do those things naturally. Do you know why servers don't say "no problem" to customers, because its been shown to subconsciously send the message that it really is a problem. There's an inherent under current message in "don't come to me with problems, bring solutions" which is that you are expected to go above and beyond your duties at all times. Again we're back to my naive American work ethic which buys into this for some dumb reason I can't explain. This new expectation and standard of behavior is unreasonable, problems will arise that need addressing, having a manager who whenever you come to them is asking what solutions you have breaks down cooperative problem solving and communication with management because the unwritten rule now is that if you have a problem without a solution you are not doing your job correctly. It also has the contradiction of if you do come up with a solution every time than why does a manager exist? If you have a solution and the manager ignores it, then why waste your time in the first place? The manager is calling the shots which means in general they are the ones in charge of problem solving and coordinating solutions.

### Human: CMV: There is equivalency between people who blindly follow scientists without knowing the facts and people who follow religious figures.### Assistant: > There is equivalency between people who blindly follow scientists without knowing the facts and people who follow religious figures. Yup. There is. > There is ignorance on both sides lets not forget it. True enough. ____ However this does not mean that religion is just as valid as science or that science is any less truth-apt (I'm taking this to be your implied view, and one I intend to change) There is a right and a wrong - both science and religion adhere to this principle. The key difference is that theories and principles provided by the scientific method are testable and either demonstrably false or demonstrably true. Following or quoting those who can reproduce their results and explain their data using solid theory is not the same as quoting a demagogue who claims their knowledge came from the very mouths of the Gods. One claim can be tested (albeit with some work), and the other is completely unknowable. I ask you then, which of these is the more useful?### Human: I like to think that the great thing about science (rather than religion) is that your only barrier to understanding science (and thus proving it to yourself) is your understanding of science. A willingness to have faith in the process of science, then, is making the reasonable (and necessary) assumption that science is not a conspiracy.### Assistant: You can't prove science to yourself. Science is proven by experiments and field observations. These are hard, and require skill, money, and time. Say you want to prove to yourself that electrons are waves, so you decide to repeat the [Davisson-Germer experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson%E2%80%93Germer_experiment). This is a very accessible experiment. Still, it would cost hundreds to thousands of dollars to build it, and it would take weeks even if you knew what you were doing. And that is just to repeat one result. There are hundreds of equally important experiments. No one has time for that. You have to believe the textbook or the people who are currently doing experiments.### Human: It is entirely possible for someone to join the scientific community. It only need be possible for this to be an improvement on the concept of an unknowable god.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You're missing the point. These are only practical limits- if Bill Gates' child were a genius with the fascination of Feynman and all other famous scientists combined and had an unlimited time for scientific study then he may well go through everything, proving it to himself. Theoretically it is possible, where it is not possible to do the same with religion.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I don't think even a saint would claim to know god completely- he is supposed to be a being beyond our understanding. Shall we look at Paley's watchmaker in reverse? It is reasonable for me to assume that a watchmaker mad the watch that I found because they are of this Earth and knowable. It is not reasonable for you to assume the existence of a god that created the universe because that is not something that we know to exist (and is not required to exist to explain the facts). Furthermore, the difference between yourself and a saint is not something that can be shown in our understanding. There is no reason to believe that there is anything different between you as there is with Bill Gates' child.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Alright, yes. I am willing to say (which I never denied) that everyone has to accept authority sources. It's just... Fine. I won't go on with the difference between making unnecessary assumptions that they can trust their sources when there is no need for them to...

### Human: Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV.### Assistant: Look at this from a societal perspective, not a personal one. In the last few decades the number of overweight and obese people in the U.S., U.K., and Australia has risen dramatically. In order for your view of obesity as a hygiene issue to hold, you must believe that large numbers of people in these three nations just decided to say "fuck it, I'm just not gonna bother" and purposely let themselves go, all at once, and have stuck with it for years and years, despite the enormous amounts of ridicule, discomfort and diseases associated with excess weight. If we look at **who** is obese, we see that it's strongly correlated with wealth/income. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be obese. I know a lot of poor people and always have, probably always will. A solid 20% of the U.S. live in poverty today, and another 20% live in near-poverty (only 1 paycheck away from being screwed, basically). Many of them are obese. Why? Calorie dense foods are cheap, available and less time consuming than the alternatives. Most poor people work their asses off all day, every day. Many hold down 2 or 3 jobs sometimes, just to keep their families housed, safe, fed and clothed. Hitting the gym isn't an option for them, and even if it was, they're usually doing more physical work than the majority of gym-goers anyway. The difference is that paid work is repetitive, stressful (in the bad way, most often), and non-negotiable if you want to keep your job. So all their physical work results in bodily damage and stress, leading to health problems and increased cortisol levels (responsible for increased fat sotrage and decreased metabolism in addition to triggering stress eating behaviors). And if you're working multiple jobs like this, you probably don't get much sleep, and when you do it isn't very restful, leading to further weight gain and health problems. As wages stagnate and governments continue austerity measures in the U.S. and other countries, this problem will most likely continue to increase despite vastly increased awareness and education, because the lower income groups continue to be a larger and larger percentage of the population. Not everyone who is obese or overweight falls into these categories, certainly. There have always been fat people throughout history and I doubt that will ever really change. But the vast numbers of people who are currently overweight or obese are part of a medical epidemic with social roots instead of purely biological ones, but those effected can't take an antibiotic to cure it, or avoid sex with infected partners to stay free of it. Being born poor is the single greatest predictor of being poor in adulthood. And being poor is the single greatest predictor for obesity in the Western world.### Human: > If we look at who is obese, we see that it's strongly correlated with wealth/income. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be obese. I know a lot of poor people and always have, probably always will. A solid 20% of the U.S. live in poverty today, and another 20% live in near-poverty (only 1 paycheck away from being screwed, basically). Many of them are obese. If "earns enough to buy and eat way more calories than necessary" is considered "poverty"... what is your term for "doesn't earn enough to buy the required amount of calories to survive"? In other words: I find such definition of "poverty" slightly offensive towards the almost 1 billion people on planet earth who are undernourished O_o### Assistant: Obesity and malnourishment can occur at the same time. Obesity also just surpassed starvation in terms of raw number of people affected.### Human: That's why I said undernourished and not simply malnourished. Btw, I suspect undernourishment is much more lethal than obesity. And usually cannot be fixed by "changing lifestyle".### Assistant: >That's why I said undernourished and not simply malnourished. Same thing. Many obese people suffer from various deficiencies. >Btw, I suspect undernourishment is much more lethal than obesity. And usually cannot be fixed by "changing lifestyle". Same "cure" as obesity: just eat right.### Human: > Same thing. Not. Undernutrition is a form of malnutrition. But malnutrition does not imply undernutrition. Undernutrition is the worst and most serious form of malnutrition possible. > Many obese people suffer from various deficiencies. Many? How many? But it's certain that 100% of all starving people suffer from multiple deficiencies. > Same "cure" as obesity: just eat right. Can't buy enough food to avoid starving? No problem! Just eat right!### Assistant: It's the same argument given for poor obese people in the U.S. "Just eat right" doesn't work for anyone but the economically privileged. Calorie dense foods are subsidized through government thanks to things like corn subsidies. It's why HFCS is cheap and in almost every processed food.### Human: Not true. /r/budgetfood isn't dedicated to coupons for fast food places. Now, I understand that the reason most people eat fast food is because is convenient. Then, if you don't have time to make proper food, [why not just eat less.](http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html)### Assistant: The Reddit demographic also severely under-represents those in poverty and over-represents those in the middle or upper-middle class, especially white, suburban Americans. Pointing to a couponing subreddit isn't evidence of much beyond the vast scope and number of reddit subs. As to why not eat less, there's a multitude of reasons. Hunger is one of the strongest (if not the strongest) biological drive humans have. Satiety, then, is extremely important and also very variable between people. While the processed, calorie rich foods may give you the calories you need, they are notoriously lacking in the satiety department, and intentionally so. Food producers like to find a bliss point, as they call it, where the food being eaten provokes the greatest pleasure possible while making sure the person doesn't get full. Cheeto's are hailed as the greatest success in that realm because they melt away in the mouth while delivering a fatty and salty flavor. This is interpreted by your body as meaning what you just ate wasn't substantial, so go ahead and keep eating them. You're not going to get full on those kinds of foods. Additionally, willpower is linked to glucose levels in the brain. If you're cutting down your caloric intake, you're literally starving yourself of willpower. This makes continuing to eat less even more difficult than it already would be. Can people do it? Of course. But when you add in all the other stressors and factors associated with poverty to those involved in losing significant amounts of weight you can see why any simple approach/solution is inadequate.### Human: It's *not* a couponing subreddit. It's a subreddit dedicated to cheap food. You'll find that the recipes posted there cost less than items on the dollar-menu, and are more nutritionally rich. Fast food has nothing to do with the feeling of satiety in this context. If you are determined to lose weight it doesn't matter if you eat Big Macs or Kobe Beef, you are not going to be satiated. That's how it works. You eat less than your body uses so your body is forced to use it's fat deposits as a fuel source. Yes, it is hard. It does require will power. But, like the example in the title, so does showering if you've never had to do it before. Also, I find the poverty argument a bit lacking as 14% of Americans live in poverty but 35% are obese.

### Human: CMV: I think Obama made the right decision not vetoing the resolution condemning Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem### Assistant: Lots of view like this are contingent on a Western understanding of the conflict (having to do with territory rights, finance, etc.). The reality is that Saudi Arabia is spreading ethnic hate for people of Jewish decent, and is *using* a minor territory dispute to recruit support from a Western audience, by gaslighting the dispute and blowing it out of proportion with every fiber of their ability. Once you understand what this is from the perspective of those involved, ethnic pride and hatred, then you understand why there can be no negotiation. I supported President Barack Obama and think he's a very smart man. I'm not sure what his broader goal-orientations were in failing to veto, but on the surface it looks naive. You should change your view because it's a superficial appraisal of the conflict. It's superficial because it doesn't factor in the actual goal-orientations of those involved and appraise them, it's based in fairness, shouldas, and sposedas; which is not a mature way to approach a situation.### Human: But if I understand you correctly, and no side is really correct, isn't abstaining seems like the best option here?### Assistant: If you take the view that you're not a part of history and only an observer, which is a mistake I think. The Jewish people are an actual part of the Western culture and conscience, and the Arabs absolutely have an opinion and are taking action concerning the Jewish people and ourselves whether we do or not. We don't have to respond to that, but I believe that's naive arrogance (not that you are personally). We should probably understand that what the Arabs do to the Jews, they'll do to us after they're done with them. So I say support Israel no matter what Israel does. You heard me right. I think the Jewish people showed their pacifism kindness to the West, and are a part of it and are brothers, and we should show them loyalty and stand by their national character as one of us. I think it's time we accept the Jewish people, and that's what offends the Arabs actually. They see the Jews as weak, and we as a bunch of phonies who'll betray them under the pressures of politics and terrorism. They're incorrect. The Western conscience isn't all for show, even without Allah, and we wont change our minds concerning Israel or the validity of the Jewish state. Also in this same vein the Arabs have pointed out many times that they don't care where Israel is, they'd resist it if it were in Montana, because the idea of a Jewish state disgusts them. Again, this is about pride, and terrorism and long-faces are about deceit and scaring the West into betrayal, and exposing us as dogs. We're not, and this tradition goes back to the gardens of Mesopotamia. The Arabs don't know how foolish they are.### Human: Can you provide some evidence that the idea of a Jewish state anywhere disgusts Arabs??### Assistant: [removed]### Human: Sorry WhenSnowDies, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 5\. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+5+Appeal+WhenSnowDies&message=WhenSnowDies+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5pm6ko/cmv_i_think_obama_made_the_right_decision_not/dcspkkn/\))

### Human: CMV: "Cultural appropriation" is fine as long as it's not overtly racist or disparaging. People have a right to use the art, styles, etc. that they like, and those who are offended are overreacting.### Assistant: I think there are two separate issues here. First is whether people have a right to appropriate art. Second is whether there is a legitimate basis for offense from those whose art is appropriated. I think the answer to the first is obviously that yes, you have a right to appropriate art. Do what you want, wear what you want, and, as with anything, be aware that others will have reactions to what you do that you cannot control. If you're fine with that, go ahead - you are a free person. Anytime somebody tells you not to do something because it constitutes appropriation, you should assume that what they mean is "I will be upset with you if you do this thing" rather than "you are not free to choose to do this thing". That is a separate question from whether those who feel their culture has been wrongfully appropriated have a legitimate grievance. I think of appropriation as divorcing the artistic value of something from the cultural context in which it was created. An analogy that I like to use to illustrate this is is the commercialization of Christmas - I'm sure there are many observant Christians who believe that Christmas traditions are intended to spring from a place of faith and reflection, and a belief that Christ is their savior. They probably see non-Christians (or non-observant Christians) as "appropriating" Christmas, in some regard, by tying it so closely to consumerism. Of course it is everybody's right to celebrate Christmas as they please, but I wouldn't begrudge a Christian for feeling like everyone else has "ruined" Christmas by taking it so far away from its spiritual roots. Christians who strongly and genuinely object to the commercialization of Christmas are clearly a minority in the U.S., and therefore their perception of the meaning of Christmas is out-voted by the relatively-less-Godly majority, and they lose control of society's dominant interpretation and valuation of the holiday. Other forms of cultural appropriation similarly divorce the entertainment value of certain art forms from the social context and life experiences that created it in the first place. As a result, society sees that art and values it very differently from the intent of its creators, and depending on what those differences look like, it can be a perfectly understandable grievance that you as a potential appropriator are free to choose to concede to or ignore.### Human: >That is a separate question from whether those who feel their culture has been wrongfully appropriated have a legitimate grievance. ∆ That is a useful distinction. Thank you for separating those cleanly. That said, I think we agree on the first point: one has a right, but that right may incur social consequences. As to the second point though, this is the key: >society sees that art and values it very differently from the intent of its creators I suppose the core of why I disregard the critics of cultural appropriation is that I don't think that has ever not been true, regardless of lack or presence of context. To borrow from literary theory, "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." (Wimsatt and Beardsley) and I think this principle is wholly generalizable to any artistic form. Even the *expressed intention or context of the author* is still, in and of itself, subject to interpretation and re-interpretation. Like the nature of a "speech act" or an "art act", there is a huge area of gray space in between what is expressed and what is understood, for everything is only a flawed medium of communication between two minds who may see things in very different ways.### Assistant: Regarding your second point, sure - there is some degree of inevitability to the fact that consumers of art won't take from art exactly what was intended by its creators. But I think that doesn't fully get you to the point where you should dismiss all claims of cultural appropriation, for a couple of reasons. First, even if it's inevitable for society to develop their own interpretation of artwork, I would never begrudge a creator the right to complain about it. They tried to express themselves in some way, and I think it's fine for them to attempt to guide interpretation of their expression, even if it's futile to do so. Second, all appropriation isn't necessarily built "equal", for lack of a better word. There is appropriation in which the original intention is disregarded in favor of some totally unrelated message (e.g., somebody getting a Chinese character tattooed on themselves because it looks pretty rather than because they know or care what it means), and there is appropriation in which the original intention runs almost totally counter to the context in which it ends up. I think this is what makes many people uncomfortable about, e.g., the appropriation of rap. I'm no expert in rap history, but I think many would argue that rap arose as a way to give voice to the experience of oppression. As a result, I don't think it's hard to understand and empathize with the appropriation of rap music by the oppressors themselves.### Human: Your second point is exactly it. Hip Hop was created as an art-form to expresses frustration at a system that neglects hip hop artist communities only to then have that same system turn around and then blame the community for showing the symptoms of that neglect. I can't remember the name of it but there was a song I really liked about a guy getting arrested for a twenty dollar bag of weed, not being able to get a job because of the arrest record, having to then go back to selling drugs to support his kid and basically entering a cycle of having to break the law and being repeatedly punished pushing him further away from being able to contribute to society all stemming from a twenty dollar bag of weed. Then we end up with Macklemore and he becomes the super power and hip hop becomes about thrift shops and living that good life. It is kind of insulting actually. As a result the popular juxtaposition becomes Macklemore on one side and little Wayne on the other and nobody wants to recognize the Jay Coles or the other positive hip Hop artist because Macklemore is already filling that spot in the lime light even though he only showed up in the last minute of the life span of the art.### Assistant: You have a limited view of art. And pop art, I should say. It's 2015.### Human: Care to elaborate

### Human: CMV: I am a circumcised male. I see no issues with the procedure and would circumcise my child if he were born in the U.S. today.### Assistant: Alright here goes. Let me start off by saying I'm a circumcised man myself, who frankly didn't give a shit about circumcision until around six months ago when I was exposed to the large body of information on the web that points to circumcision being harmful. First of all, here are five peer reviewed studies I've found which I feel make the case pretty well for circumcision doing more harm than good. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902 [Additionally, here's a video of an anatomist describing in detail what he believes to be the harm of circumcision. A bit dry, but very descriptive.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw) Also, I'd like to point to one of the studies you referenced. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 You'll see that the primary author is Brian Morris. Mr. Morris is not a doctor and there is [quite a bit of controversy around him and his work](http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris). I'll let you be the judge of that. You mentioned the WHO recommending circumcision. Here are some statements from dozens of medical organizations in different countries that have taken a stance against circumcision: http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm, http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ You'll find that most all medical organizations in Europe are against routine circumcision. Regarding the percentage of people who are circumcised, yes most of the midwest is. But the [overall average for the US is 58%](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-rate-drops_n_5107637.html) and continues to drop. If we look at the whole world, [70% of the world is intact, with the vast majority of the world's circumcised men being Muslims.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision) In terms of psychological damage, [here's a preliminary study linking circumcision to alexithymia](http://www.academia.edu/6395216/Alexithymia_and_Circumcision_Trauma_A_Preliminary_Investigation), a personality disorder. While a baby won't remember circumcision, it's said that a baby's blood cortisol levels spike during circumcision and this affects their development. [Here is a comprehensive list of potential psychological effects of circumcision, though this is a very biased source so keep that in mind](http://cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/index.html) In terms of HIV prevention, [here's a video of the acclaimed Dr. Dean Edell describing his views on the matter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE) In terms of "satisfaction", I'll offer an anecdote from an uncircumcised man describing his pleasure, if you'll excuse the graphic detail: >When pressed for details, my friends described ejaculation as something that felt good for the penis, and pleasure that lasted for about 5 seconds after a while masturbating with lotion. >For me, this experience was (and still is) vastly different. My friends described the sensations of orgasm as something limited to the penis. For me, orgasm was something that not only felt good for my penis, but also felt good for my entire body. Orgasm for me is not some sudden surprise coming, either, but rather something I can feel coming on from the very moment I begin masturbating (or these days, making love). And even when the moment comes, orgasm for me is peak to a gradual and fulfilling crescendo of sexual pleasure, where it reaches an apex after I ride waves of pleasure up and down, and slowlywind down enjoy the aftermath of that feeling.* Before reading stuff like this, I was completely content with my penis and probably would have never even guessed it could be better. Everyone will be satisfied with their dick if it's all they know. But now I know there's something better out there that I'm missing out on. And it's not to make myself or any other circumcised man feel bad, it's to make sure the next generation get the full experience. I highly recommend [checking out his entire article](http://barreloforanges.com/2012/07/17/the-unspoken-aspects-of-having-a-foreskin-a-guest-post-by-life-intact/) Good for you challenging your beliefs and doing research, something I wish *my* parents had done before having me cut. Let me know if you have any questions. Edit: Just want to say I'm really happy my comment was so well received. It took me a while to type up , glad it wasn't for nothing. : )### Human: ∆ because you made a lot of points for which I've awarded others deltas. The HIV video seems to be more focused on the impracticality of performing it in Africa. I think what I want to know is *how* circumcision's effects on HIV transmission work and how/why it differs in the west and for male-to-male vs. male-to-female transmission.### Assistant: The issue with HIV transmission study is that it was flawed. Study took place in Africa and they compared muslims (cut) to non muslims (uncut) ... Here lies the flaw: muslim countries are much, much more sexually repressive than non muslim countries (men and women there will have very small number of sexual partners during their life) and muslim men have the right to have several spouses diminishing the risk of extra marital sex with a non trusted partener. These 2 reasons are why HIV infection rates are so low . While the non muslim part of Africa is generally more promiscuous hence the galoping infection rates. Nothing to do with circumcision . Why the authors of the study couldn't figure ou this mistake is beyond me.. almost feel like they're dishonest on purpose...why? Don't forget that surgeons, anesthesiologists and then the hospital businesses really like the idea that they will perform an operation on every male born (guaranteed, continuous flow of customers), don't forget that they gain good money from these acts.### Human: Sorry, but this is complete and utter baloney. [There are many randomised, prospective (i.e., before and after) studies controlling for religion and lifestyle practices demonstrating efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV infection in many nations.](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001641)### Assistant: Not from any developed country, not even the US.

### Human: CMV: Parents should not allow their child to live transgender/ cross dress under the age of 12-13### Assistant: drag and being trans are ENTIRELY seperate things and it is extremely, extremely important to not confuse them.### Human: I respect where you're coming from, and the distinctions between the two are important to acknowledge, but realistically, the lines between them can be confusing sometimes.### Assistant: they really can't.### Human: I guess you weren't trying to be sensitive like I thought.### Assistant: No, /u/ajrhug is right. Drag Queens are men who identify as men but enjoy dressing in women's clothing. Transwomen are assigned male at birth but are and identify as women. Huge freaking difference### Human: Not saying there isn't a difference, or even that the difference isn't important - it is. Just saying that it can be confusing. Even for those of us who are living it.

### Human: CMV: It is not necessary to prove that gays are "born this way" in order to advance gay rights.### Assistant: It's necessary because otherwise you have to prove that homosexuality is inherently positive/beneficial to justify actively conditioning society to have a positive view of it (through gay marriage laws etc.).### Human: Wouldn't people have to do that anyway? The fact that someone is, say, born a psychopath doesn't make it obvious for the rest of us to just accept it. Much of our endeavor as a society is often to rise above our instincts and nature and "civilize" ourselves. This doesn't have to be done always.### Assistant: Your psychopath example is obvious in a liberal society though. They breach the fundamental rationale of 'don't hurt others'. Even so, the 'born this way' part of it slightly mitigates the judgement we have of the way the psychopath impacts others.### Human: >Your psychopath example is obvious in a liberal society though. They breach the fundamental rationale of 'don't hurt others'. Well, often people who are anti-gay aren't just that way because they have some visceral revulsion to it. They often make the argument that it's bad for society, etc. My point is that you'd have to tackle this whether or not "born this way" is true. >Even so, the 'born this way' part of it slightly mitigates the judgement we have of the way the psychopath impacts others. It might make us be less antagonistic, but we'd still want to lock them up (at least those who follow through and kill someone). On the flip side, people who are often sexually abused end up abusing others. Does this mitigate our judgment? Probably not. Should it? Maybe, I don't know. They certainly weren't "born" abused, but I feel it can be a similar issue.### Assistant: I disagree about the sexual abuse one, from what I see it does seem to mitigate judgement, the same with addiction, as with the 'born like that' causation, it's all the same, the person isn't (as) culpable for the act. Even the criminal system operates on this basis, two materially similar crimes will be treated differently according to intent.

### Human: CMV: Obama was never going to attack Syria.### Assistant: its not bluffing its a legitimate negotiation strategy, both countries know the other does not want to do so, but by putting it out there they need to respond to it, and they can't simply say no. so they would have to act like its a big deal while hiding their weapons. basically its chess both the weapons and threats are pawns, they are not there to win the game they are there to put the "king" in a position where the player can cause a check mate### Human: I see what you're saying, and I'm not saying that it isn't a legitimate negotiation strategy, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bluff. We used a bluff to end WW2, so it isn't like we've never done something similar in the past. The problem is, they weren't necessarily hiding their weapons, they just weren't giving them up. So Obama laid down a threat to them, saying if they didn't give them up, we would forcefully take them (effectively causing a war). Obviously, neither side wanted a war and Obama knew this. So by laying down a threat (which I believe to be a bluff), he somewhat successfully got Syria to cooperate. Bluffing is a legitimate strategy of it's own.### Assistant: >We used a bluff to end WW2, so it isn't like we've never done something similar in the past. Wait what bluff? Didnt we drop 2 atomic bombs after we threatened to do so?### Human: We dropped 2 atomic bombs, then we threatened to use a 3rd one, but we didn't have another because we'd used it to test if they worked.### Assistant: Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki was bombed on August 9. Two additional Fat Man assemblies were ready for shipment on August 11 and August 14, and a new plutonium assembly was cast on those days, but still needed to be pressed and coated, and it would have been ready for use over Japan on August 19. There was a standing order that new bombs were to be dropped on targets "as made ready," although on August 10, the day after the Nagasaki bombing, Truman modified that order stating that the next bomb(s) should only be dropped on his authorization. Production was to continue. If there was a bluff, it wasn't much of one. A mere 10 days before the next Fat Man bomb would have been ready to be dropped on Japan.### Human: Hmm. Weird. I like to think of myself as a World War buff but I did not know that. Thank you for the info. However, even though that makes the bluff less of a bluff and more of an actual threat* (not "bluff, sorry), at the time it was a bluff nonetheless.### Assistant: If they had more bombs ready within the next two weeks, it isn't a bluff. Just give him a delta, it's okay to be wrong about something if you admit it.### Human: He only replied to me once and didn't convince me of anything new, he just gave me new information that I hadn't known before.### Assistant: Isn't that what this subreddit is about? You can change views with more than just logic, facts are valid too, and you can award deltas even if they only partly changed your view. Giving a delta does not mean admitting defeat.### Human: Fair enough. I apologize if I came off as a dick in anyway. I had a rough day then decided to post, and I'm a very stubborn person, so being wrong isn't something I like lol.### Assistant: Apology accepted. My original comment was also a bit rude and I apologise for that.

### Human: CMV: Homeschooling should no longer be an option### Assistant: 1) Personal experience is not something we make laws based off of. Do you have access to any widely-conducted studies that support the conclusion that homeschooled kids are less well-adjusted? There are many ways to gain social interaction outside of school. Sports, church, scouting, etc. 2) You can't possibly know this about every household. If my wife holds advanced degrees in social sciences, and I in physical sciences, I am fairly confident we could provide an exemplary elementary school education to anyone that walked through our door. 3) In the age of interconnectedness, more and more communication is happening remotely ANYWAY. If anything, I think current technology weakens your argument because people CAN get personal interaction without ever leaving the house AT ALL. 4) Again, you're making assumptions about people. And how is this unique to homeschool? Are many of the kids in public school not doing the work "because Teacher tells them to"? Homeschooling already IS regulated. Students have to be able to pass standardized tests, and there IS a standardized curriculum. They are held to the same accreditation standards as everyone else.### Human: 1.) There are a few (DOI 10.1080/0161956X.2013.798516, Lubienski et al) and (Homeschooling: A Comprehensive Survey of the Research by Kunzman et al) studies that address the subject, however the research methodology is severely limited. As noted by Kunzman several times, homeschool parents are pressured into not participating in studies. There have not been any broad standardized tests on homeschooled children, most studies relying on self-reporting. 2.) I'm not saying I do. In my own household growing up, my dad is a physicist and my mom is a nurse (over 30 years experience). I have no doubt that highly educated people can be an asset to their kids education. however, you being highly educated is not enough. do you have training on different educational approaches? do you provide the same level of advanced facilities that schools can provide? can you provide the diversity of opinion found in the classroom? 3.) even with communication devices like Skype, do you really think that the world works like this? having more ways to communicate does not diminish the role of face-to-face interaction and socialization, it makes it vital. do you really think your kid will be able to close that million dollar merger through Skype? 4.) In continuing education (bachelors and beyond), there will be a teacher telling them what to do. I'm concerned with the lack of motivation after leaving the house and not having that 24/7 crutch of mom/dad being the educator to all back on. Motivation is a personal problem, sure, but which is more likely to succeed? Being in an environment where motivation is supplied by the parents or motivation is supplied by a teacher? In my own life, my parents didn't motivate me to do well. My teachers did, by instilling in me the idea that learning is a continuing goal, and that learning new things is a joy. this does not happen (according to all the research I have read) in the insular environment of the homeschool. Also of note is the Kunzman article. They note that according to the research they have summarized, there is no statistical advantage of homeschooling. Why rod your kids of socialization if there is no obvious academic benefit, even to the minority of homeschooled students that go to college?### Assistant: I think your impression of homeschooling as lacking in socialization is off the mark. Homeschooling families often form groups together for their kids to go on outings as a group, take part in extracurricular classes during the day, or, especially when they get older, doing core classes (especially math or science) with a parent or hired tutor who has more expertise in the subject area. Formal schooling is not the only way for a child to be socialized (and many homeschooling parents would argue that it's far from the *best* way, even.)### Human: And they usually all have the same values, typically highly religious, and lack the diversity a public school offers. A good portion of parents home school for the purpose of sheltering them from things and experiences they don't want them to see.### Assistant: Now THAT, I agree, can be a problem, and is more of the reason why I'm skeptical about homeschooling. Your very concern was the concern that got me started on a research project in college, but I didn't get far enough to really be able to say if my fears were true or not. It's also hard to know if my fairly liberal area still yielded a good representation of religious homeschoolers. (There is also a large segment of the homeschooling population that is not at all religious, more hippy-leftists that also congregate with like-minded families, but I don't think that segment is growing at quite the same rate as the families who homeschool for religious reasons.)

### Human: CMV: I think any religion which preaches "heaven vs hell" while claiming their god to be just and good is logically inconsistent.### Assistant: St. Isaac of Syria, an early monastic from 600AD, and venerated saint in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions, says God is not just at all. Instead, he says that God is merciful. The Eastern Orthodox tradition, while still admitting a state of being called "hell", don't consider that experience as punishment AND allow for that experience to be temporal. Unlike the Protestant tradition, the Eastern Orthodox believe that you can pray for your loved ones to find salvation, even after their death. To the Eastern Orthodox, "hell" isn't punishment. God is purely merciful and the only negative experience comes from an individual's denying of that mercy - like those angry at Jesus for forgiving the prostitute. These individuals are in a place of pure love and mercy and their heart's are hardened by such mercy, like the Westboro Baptist Church feeling hate toward the open receiving and lovingkindness shown toward homosexuals. So basically the Eastern Orthodox tradition would agree with you. --- >Christianity (and other religions) teaches that god is just, and we'll all either end up in either heaven or hell. Orthodox Christianity teaches that god is merciful, not just, and everyone goes to the same place after death. While some may experience this pure mercy as a "hell", this experience is not permanent. >Justice (by human definition) requires that punishments fit crimes. God is not just, so this doesn't matter. The idea of the courtroom metaphor was popularized late in the tradition, mostly by Anselm. The ancient church uses other metaphors more often, such as the Prodigal Son (a son coming home and receiving forgiveness - not a judge punishing or rewarding a defendant). >If god rewards us for abandoning reason, or punishes us for relying on it, then I hate him The abandonment of reason is privileged and glorified pretty much by the Protestant tradition, and pretty much only parts of it. Do note that many of the first "scientists" were theologians. --- Basically, I'm not hoping to change your rationale about mercy and justice; rather, I hope to encourage you to consider changing your view about what "Christianity" is and isn't.### Human: ∆ Wow. I wasn't even aware there were branches of Christianity that taught this. I might as well mention that the reason I want my view to be changed is that my parents (and many of my friends) are protestant Christians, and I have a hard time reconciling my rationality with their beliefs. It appears my opinion about protestantism won't be changed here, but perhaps I can harvest some good talking points for talking about this with my friends and family.### Assistant: In addition, I'll reaffirm that Catholics think similarly too. While Catholicism somewhat reaffirms the idea of a separated Hell, the idea is that Hell is literally only the complete absence of God and Grace – and that nothing is stated on the eternity of the punishment. Catholicism is a diverse tradition that allows from what's known as "weak universalism" (that eventually, everyone will come to God) to the idea that people will be punished eternally. **However**, the unifying theme is that the door or the "crime" of punishment *only* occurs from the person or sinner. Nothing is ever stated about how long the punishment lasts. In fact, people are thought to get a multitude of chances – including in the afterlife. God as justice is God as just to the weak, oppressed, and brokenhearted. God's foremost quality is that of love and eternal forgiveness; God is understood to be just and merciful *only with this lens*. In addition, Catholicism, like the Orthodox, absolutely reaffirm using reason. Our entire faith is built on reasoning out why we do things from the light of *one* event alone (the Resurrection). So yeah, your protestant friends are very much in the minority. Between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism, you've essentially covered a supermajority of Christians.### Human: >Hell is literally only the complete absence of God and Grace If God is omnipresent, how can he be absent anywhere?### Assistant: > If God is omnipresent, how can he be absent anywhere? There are a couple of ways we can think about this. 1. We can focus on the problems that religion has fully trying to explain what exactly God is – that is, what characterizes God? There are lots of things, and one of them is of course omnipresence, but does that mean omnipresence everywhere throughout Creation, or just on this particular plane of existence? What does it mean to be omnipresence? Does this suggest, then, that Hell also could imply nonexistence? (All very good questions, by the way, and each aren't really answered, but could lead to perfectly reasonable answers.) 1. Another way is to think that God's omnipotence extends to the logically impossible: that is, it is completely conceivable that God is able to make the illogical logical. Of course, there are multitudes of other answers that are correct. Some fall into the Orthodox camp – which is also an acceptable answer in Roman Christianity – and others still think of it in other ways that I haven't covered. But good question, nonetheless! (Also, join the /r/christianity theology amas if you want to ask someone more advanced and knowledgeable than I about this, if you'd like – I'm just a novice after all :P)

### Human: CMV: People interested in social justice should also consider a career in the trades, engineering, healthcare, and law### Assistant: >These professions also command a livable salary, and people would have the means to donate to causes of their interest. Not anymore. Too many law graduates can't find work as lawyers, and the average debt one walks away with (undergrad + law school) exceeds all but what Big Law will pay. Big Law is notoriously competitive and selective; most people will not be paid that salary, and the quality of life - while some might enjoy it - is largely regarded as very low and extremely high-stress. It is also usually transactional or big civil litigation, representing clients that the average person concerned about social justice would balk at helping.### Human: Tbf when I was volunteering at the ACLU most of the high up staff attorneys were T14 grads that did big law for a long time. I law student attending a top school has a shot to end up at a top firm and then do high impact litigation civil rights litigation, which is pretty damn serious SJ work. Lot of big ifs there though.### Assistant: Exactly. If you can tick off all of the what ifs, then you might get a try at high impact policy litigation. OP'S post paints a very different likelihood of achieving that outcome vis-a-vis alternatives.### Human: Still think it's worthwhile for someone legitimately passionate about social justice to do an easy lib arts major, get a 4.0, study like crazy for the LSAT, and go to a T14. Not doable for everyone but not impossible.### Assistant: Go to a T14 on scholarship, maybe, but the state of law school is presently being described by people in law as in a state of "crisis" and a "scam." Even dialing the rhetoric down a notch, a 7 year series of huge, expensive bets is not exactly a superior plan to picking a soft major.

### Human: College athletics programs are ridiculous and have no place in the education system CMV### Assistant: You cite a source that claims that 23 of 228 NCAA DI athletics departments at public universities make money. You see that statistic and argue that it demonstrates how athletics departments generally fail to make a good amount of money. Another interesting takeaway, though, is that it also implies that more than 200 schools continue supporting athletics departments that make them no money. There must be a reason they do that, right? And maybe it is only cultural, but then there at least has to be a reason that that culture is (generally) sustained. So I'll give you a few practical reasons why schools might want athletics programs, then I'll give a more lofty, philosophical answer. Let's start by assuming that all colleges want to spark **interest** in their school, make **money** to improve their school, and build a **reputation** to ensure that the school is respected. Here's how athletics can contribute to that. 1. Interest. Athletics programs attract students. As a purely anecdotal example, I myself was attracted away from a top 5 liberal arts school (acceptance statistics equivalent to Duke) to instead go to a national university just barely considered in the top 25. A large part of that was because of the athletics program at the national university. I myself am not an athlete, but I have a deep love for sports. I wanted to be in an environment that fostered that love. That's just anecdotal, though. There are other, more legitimate reasons to believe that athletics programs attract students. Have you heard of the [Flutie Effect?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect) It's a term used to describe a phenomenon where interest in a school by prospective students increases after a successful season in a nationally popular sport. [Check out this list of the schools with the most NCAA championships.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect). The top 15 schools in terms of athletic achievement include Stanford, UCLA, USC, Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, Wisconson, and Yale. Those are some pretty good schools. Apparently athletic success hasn't doomed them to academic failure. And in a few cases (particularly USC), it is often argued that athletic success had a huge part in *causing* academic success. 2. Money. The source you cited seemed to only take ticket sales into account. I would argue that a much more important fundraising role for athletics is encouraging donations by fostering a feeling of school pride. granted, some of those donations may come with requests that the money only be used for athletics, but those are not in the majority. I think people are generally more likely to donate to a school they feel a close bond to. It's easy for that bond to be established without athletics in small liberal arts schools, but in larger universities a unifying force is needed. Athletics can be that force, as it--unlike any other department at a school--draws its support from the student body at large. Not everybody at Stanford goes to classical music concerts. Not everybody goes to engineering discussions. But damned near everybody goes to football games. 3. Reputation. The fact is that people want to attend a successful school. And athletic success is arguably the most easily publicized form of success. It is not as quiet and slow as academic success. It is not as nebulous as artistic success. It clearly identifies winners and losers, and everybody wants to be a winner. The Harvard-Yale game is considered so important by those two schools because it is one of the few ways to determine who is really "better" in anything. The same goes for the Big Game (Stanford vs. Berkeley), or the Crosstown Rivalry (USC vs. UCLA). All three games are ways for one school to assert their dominance over their rival. Think of it as an extremely strange version of rams fighting over a mate. So those are a few "practical" reasons colleges have athletic programs. But there is another that I subscribe to, though it may be a bit more idealistic. Why do we say "college" or "university" rather than "school"? Because a school is only a mechanism for generating knowledge--mainly though the transfer of it from one person to another. The word "university" connotes so much more. It implies a culture, an experience, a desire for excellence, a collection of people that exhibit diverse talents, and a unified force. The world's best universities are repositories for excellence in everything. They pour millions into creating gorgeous campuses that exhibit marvels of architecture. They generate Oscar winners, Grammy winners, Emmy winners, and Olympic medal winners. They devote untold time, energy, and money towards research in every field from English to Physics to Business. So, they want a student body that is as successful in as many diverse fields as they are. Why take 2,000 great science students when there are liberal arts students available? Why only take academics when there are artists and athletes and business innovators and philanthropists available? Every college's admission website will tell you that they are looking to craft a student body that is diverse. It is a tough point to argue that those few who are successful in one of the most competitive fields in the world have some diversity to contribute. And on top of that, many schools are interested in athletic success on the resumes of non-athlete applicants, simply because they appreciate talent in *everything*. So I guess what I'm saying with all this is that a college does not need to justify an athletic program with how it will help the school. Why not excel purely for excellence? And I'm curious about where you're coming from with this question. Are you a student at a college with a large athletic program that you feel marginalizes you? Are you a student at a college with a small athletics program that cannot understand why some schools focus so much on them? Are you a college student that got rejected from another school and feel that you would have gotten in were it not for athletes taking your spot? Are you an athlete that feel they took a spot from a more worthy student? Are you a prospective student worried about being rejected from a dream school in favor of an athlete? Are you a professor jealous of the football coach's salary? Are you none of those? I guess that your answer could influence how your view might be changed, but really I'm just curious. As a final comment, I invite you to consider that if there is a facet of being a college that nearly *every* college feels an obligation to ascribe to, there must be some sort of reason for it. I doubt every college president just has a hard-on for football.### Human: >You cite a source that claims that 23 of 228 NCAA DI athletics departments at public universities make money. You see that statistic and argue that it demonstrates how athletics departments generally fail to make a good amount of money. Another interesting takeaway, though, is that it also implies that more than 200 schools continue supporting athletics departments that make them no money. I don't know if you have been following the Ed OBannon vs NCAA case. But this number is bullshit. All programs make money. They just use accounting tricks to hide it. Such as putting all of the concessions revenue into the university dining instead of under athletics. I don't have hard numbers but it would be interesting to see them.### Assistant: I've been following it a bit, but I didn't realize that that was a finding. When I wrote what I wrote, I was only trying to show another way to interpret the source the other person was citing. As a side-note, though, I really hope NCAA athletes eventually develop the ability to sign with agents, get a cut of broadcast revenue, and sell their likeness to EA Sports and whatnot.### Human: This is the article where I heard about the accounting tricks: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/the-lawsuit-that-could-bring-down-the-ncaa.html >O’Bannon’s response to the NCAA may be the most powerful case ever assembled against the association’s propaganda machine. Among other things, it systematically dismantles the NCAA’s argument that the vast majority of its members lose money on sports. In fact, most Division I schools are not caught in an expensive arms race for coaches and athletic facilities. They have simply obscured the profitability of their football and basketball programs with accounting tricks, such as shifting revenue from sports concessions to the food service budget. And I agree that the athletes deserve a cut of the money. These colleges and the NCAA have been exploiting them for too long.### Assistant: [relevant](http://www.sportspickle.com/video/6509/south-park-on-ncaa-student-athletes)

### Human: CMV: I believe the only solution to an inevitable increase in automation, especially after the advent of a sufficiently advanced artificial general intelligence (AGI) is socialism### Assistant: I'm not attempting to pit nicks, but I believe you have successfully argued for a non-market method of wealth distribution, but failed to demonstrate how socialism is the appropriate solution, or how capitalism can't be tweaked to accommodate this need.### Human: I agree with you that I didn't necessarily argue for socialism, so unless you can somehow morph capitalism in such a way where it is still capitalism or present another option, I don't think there are any other options.### Assistant: > I don't think there are any other options. There must be. For I see your OP as holding "socialism" and "capitalism" as the two poles, and I believe one can successfully argue that "socialism" won't even allow us to get to the productivity stage where jobs are eliminated as there will not be an incentive to do so. So therefore we will only get to the point you're worried about if market incentives are allowed to drive us there. And thus we are discussing capitalism.### Human: Computers don't need incentive.### Assistant: That statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Why do you feel the economic concept of "incentive" has no bearing on the actions of an AGI?### Human: For two reasons, one, the way you are using the term, implies a very primitive form of incentive, basically a monetary one. Not one for philosophical reasons. So, a super intelligence, could easily have incentive, just for the sake of doing, for the sake of creating. But also, machines of lesser sort of AI, powerful computers, but not sentient ones, only need t odo whatever you program into them. They don't need incentive. They will do whatever they are programmed to do. And they can solve problems as well. Of course it depends how you program them. One way could be to program them to obtain maximum profit, in which case, they will require the same incentive.### Assistant: I'm not the one using a very narrow definition of the term incentive. Please reread w/o that assumption.### Human: Lol, well then you're the one assuming that beings much smarter than you would not have their own reasoning as incentive. You can't say that an intelligence much greater than yours will not have incentive for something. Because reasoning can provide its own incentive.

### Human: I believe that the "Today We Fight Back" movement will prove futile in reigning in the powers of the NSA. CMV.### Assistant: The organizers of the event aren't considering today, in itself, to be effective in halting government invasions of privacy. But it's a combination of constituent representation through congressperson communication, public awareness/outrage, and [as hueypriest commented](http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/1xm3qu/today_we_fight_back_against_mass_surveillance/cfckvzd), a first step in a longer public campaign. Even if congress were to ignore today and continue promoting invasive NSA practices, the online movement has done a good job at immediately getting people organized. >In addition, the government wants this power; why else would they allow it to grow to this extent. "The government" is made up of many different branches, and congress is one of them. If congresspeople don't represent the interest of their constituents, they lose their reputation and voting support and they're swiftly voted out of office. Why would congresspeople support the NSA for getting government power (that they, themselves, would not be getting) when they'd be at risk of getting kicked out by their constituents? >Our government had to shut down last year because they couldn't balance their budget, one of the most essential functions. Why do you think they will put so much more effort into curbing the NSA? The budget balance was an issue strictly along party lines, both in public and in congress. This is a nonpartisan issue that, as far as I can tell, no one outside of govt is happy with.### Human: The problem here, is that the leadership of the NSA in particular, and spies more generally, honestly are not human in the sense that we usually think of that term. These people are complete psychopaths. They have no empathy, no compassion, and no conscience. They don't care about what you think, or how you feel, or how their activities might be adversely affecting your life. They don't care about you because they literally do not have the neurochemical capacity to care. The only thing they want, or care about, is total control over you. They don't want control because they're really interested in stopping terrorism; that is just a lie that they tell you, in order to convince you to let them do what they want. They want total control of you, purely for its' own sake. Control as an end in itself. Control because they think that if they have such control, that will prove in their own minds that they are inherently better than you. Julian Assange might be the founder of Wikileaks, but he still suffers from the same condition himself, to a large extent. He thinks that he is inherently superior to most other people. If Americans really cared about their genuine wellbeing, and really had their priorities straight, then the CIA, NSA, and DHS (at the very least) would be completely and unconditionally abolished, and the leadership and many of the staff of these organisations would be psychiatrically evaluated, and then securely incarcerated for the rest of their lives, pending research into a cure for their psychopathy. They are uncompromisingly sick people. They should not be negotiated with, and they should not be granted concessions in any way or of any kind. They simply need to be locked up. Forms of activism like petitions, rely on the idea that the people causing the behaviour that the petition is a response to, have a conscience and will listen to their demands; and that again, when talking about the NSA, is the central dilemma here. You do not know who and what you are really dealing with. You do not know just how completely, and unsparingly evil, the NSA really are. If you did know that, then you would know that petitions are not going to work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc### Assistant: It's a remarkable theory, but I see no reason to believe it. One could argue that staff psychopathy must be at work if it's the only explanation. However, there's many circumstances where someone can take work in surveillance without being a sick, inhuman psychopath. Anyone can be corrupted by power, certainly, and certain types of work can attract personality types that have a desire for power and information. It's possible that the directors and spies you mention have had to internally justify their immoral actions in order to continue working, leading to an unhealthy cognitive dissonance. Substantial claims require substantial evidence, and I'm not sure what's supporting your claims. But supposing that what you say is true, it doesn't explain why petitions wouldn't work. The directors of the NSA are hardly infallible - they're still ordered by higher powers, under rule of legislation, and funded by taxpayers. Congress has the legislative power to shut them down. Like I said in my comment, it's not simply petitions, and it's not directly to the NSA: it's toward the people who can break the NSA. Unless you want to claim that congress is psychotic, too, in which case they can be easily removed.### Human: > Substantial claims require substantial evidence, and I'm not sure what's supporting your claims. This is a paraphrased quote from Carl Sagan, one of the major heroes in the pantheon of bogus or mainstream Atheism. *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."* It's also a pseudoskeptical fallacy; although it superficially ***sounds*** good, as Sagan's statements often did. The terms, "extraordinary," or "substantial," are entirely subjective in meaning. There is no such thing as an "extraordinary," claim, because being "extraordinary," is not an objectively defined condition. There are only claims; and these are neither inherently extraordinary or non-extraordinary. They are simply either true or false. You may, of course, be referring to the fact that in some cases, the evidence might need to appear extraordinary, in order for said evidence to survive passage beyond your own emotional or subjective bias, yes; but again, that has nothing to do with the raw, boolean proveability of a given claim. > Unless you want to claim that congress is psychotic, too, ***in which case they can be easily removed.*** The fact that Americans believe this, would be a source of comedy; if not for the consequences of said belief being so tragic.### Assistant: Fair enough, I did paraphrase that, and I can understand how the term "extraordinary" can be taken subjectively. Even then, I still don't see what evidence supports your claims, so I don't see any reason to believe them. >The fact that Americans believe this, would be a source of comedy; if not for the consequences of said belief being so tragic. Why do you disagree? House Reps only have 2 year terms. Senators annoyingly have 6, but they're still vulnerable by voters.### Human: > Why do you disagree? House Reps only have 2 year terms. Senators annoyingly have 6, but they're still vulnerable by voters. Let me put it another way. The legislative branch is gerontocratic, (that is, populated almost exclusively by the elderly; sometimes by the extreme elderly) and they are also constantly subject to bribes from corporations and lobby groups, in various forms. In other words, it is systemically and unavoidably corrupt; just as the Roman Senate was. If you disagree, look at the level of power which the executive branch has taken from the legislature in the last 20-25 years. Look also at their current approval rating; 9%. They do not represent the public, and many of the public know this. As a result of this, individual Senators can come and go; it will ultimately make little difference. If you are going to have a reasonably large population, then the Jeffersonian Republic (modelled, as I have said before, on the Augustine Principate) is not necessarily the worst system in existence, (but I certainly do not consider it the best, either) although it is important to understand that it is a hybrid, between imperial monarchy on the one hand, and some vestiges (although compromised by things like the electoral college) of Athenian democracy. Like many hybrids, however, it is also inherently unstable. The real killer is continental scale federalism. You can have any system you like, but as long as it is federal, and governs a population of more than probably 2,000 people at the most, (and yes, I'm serious, due to the inability of human beings to keep track of more than around 200 relationships at once) then it will not work.

### Human: CMV: The recent shunning of the confederate flag is not due to some sudden revelation of the horrors it represents.### Assistant: A lot of time it takes an event to trigger a change. Let's say there is an overweight person who doesn't care about their health. Now they have probably known the dangers of being overweight and unhealthy for years but didn't care. Then one day some stranger makes a joke about, "that whale over there". This could hurt them so much they turn their life around and get healthier. Now you could argue, they only lost the weight to make sure nobody makes fun of them and doesn't really care about the health benefits. So back to the flag issue, yes people have known it's history for awhile and could have stopped selling years ago. But it wasn't until the recent event in SC that causes the companies to look internally and say, "this isn't right that we sell this flag".### Human: It is an emotional knee jerk response though. But that is what Alinky's all about, never wasting a crisis.### Assistant: It may be an emotional knee jerk response...but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. Whether it is in response to a crisis isn't what is important and if you use that to discredit the action, you are skating around an issue. If you take it out of the context of any recent events and think about it rationally, the confederate flag represents a group who's primary focus was to retain the right to commit some of the worst violations of basic human rights in world history. Denial of that is just being willfully blind. Yes, the confederate flag may represent some other things to some people...but the Nazis had agendas and policies beyond mass genocide too, some that many people may agree with, but we don't sell swastikas at Wal-Mart.### Human: The problem isn't selling or buying the confederate flag. I've always been torn by the issue itself as an Alabamian, but one from the Northern part of the state that had little to no slaves and was pro Union. The problem is even completely knowing the history, the universal condemnation of Southerners is starting to be a little much. It is the Robert E. Lee situation, I would be pro Union but I couldn't take up arms against Alabama either. The big problem is the moralizing of the Civil War. The four "slave" states that remained in the Union kept their slaves until the end of the war. The one group of slaves Lincoln could legally free he didn't. Why? Pragmatism. But he also arrested Kentucky and Maryland's legislatures so they couldn't vote for succession. War is messy, history is messy so stop with the moralizing. If the war was about basic human rights, then why did the nation depend on duties on Southern Cotton/Tariffs on Imported Goods for a vast majority of its revenue stream pre 1860? If the war was a moral cause then why were the northern generals committing crimes against their countrymen that would have a modern American general thrown in jail? Stop equating the confederate flag with the Swastika as well. The Klan uses the American Flag.### Assistant: But the flag in question - flying over the statehouse - was put there as a response to desegregation. It hasn't been flying that long, and clearly wasn't frst installed at the statehouse for the sake of southern pride.### Human: But it wasn't flying over the statehouse before it was taken down, it was at a memorial.### Assistant: Ok - so a (very) few years ago they moved it from "over" the statehouse to within a few feet of but not technically over the statehouse so it's ok now?

### Human: CMV: There are more taboos and stigmas in modern morality than there are logical reasons for them### Assistant: Seldom do most of these things harm "just you". **Drugs** I couldn't care less if you light up an occasional joint. But if you're shooting heroin, there's a good chance you'll become hooked. Hey, it's you're life - you should be free to throw it away, right? But what if you have kids? Either they grow up in a living hell, or the state has to support them in a somewhat less hell-like circumstance. And of course, many junkies need money to support their habit, so they borrow money from family, break in to cars or houses, mug people. They OD and the state pays for their hospitalization. We live in a complex society. It's not like you're sitting in a cabin in Montana, growing your own opium poppies and creating your own drugs - so, yes, there is stigma because of the impact on society. **Incest** The reason there are laws and taboos against incest is that it's unlikely that there will be healthy relationships. Cousins aren't such a big deal except for the increased risk of recessive genes causing a problem with children. But parent/child is inherently unhealthy because of the power difference. Children naturally (and by necessity) learn to obey their parents. When you throw in a sexual component, there is no possible free consent - the same reason that there are taboos and laws against teachers or doctors having relationships with those in their care. Even with siblings, we have the problem that if they break up, it will unquestionably weaken the family. (Whose side do you take, who do you support, who is welcome at home?). Since the family is the first line of support for caregiving, financial or other help, weakening the family increases the likelihood that the state will need to help out. So, I agree - if you want to be gay, have an orgy, smoke moderate amounts of pot - things that really only affect you, go for it. But the list of things that don't have an impact on others is a lot smaller than you state.### Human: I can tell you 100% that all drugs should be legalized immediately, everything. The science on this is rock solid and beyond question. Particularly in the case of hard drugs abuse, these people always, always have some sort of history of extreme abuse or neglect in their lives. Their brains become wired specifically toward their drug of choice, opiates, amphetamines or both. A huge part of what keeps them down is the feeling of being social outcasts - feeling unable to integrate back into society, it's easier to turn back to addiction. In situations where they are treated with dignity, given access to health services. Even giving them access to free, clean drugs ends the cycle faster and more cheaply because they aren't exposing themselves to nearly as many risks like sexual abusing themselves, criminal behavior and the risk of OD. Experiments have been done and these things have been a resounding success. What's really happening is that the state is actually preying on these people. The vast state apparatus is proof of this, police, legal system, prisons. The corruption surrounding these entities is enormously powerful.### Assistant: I wasn't addressing whether or not they should be legalized, but why it's in society's interest to discourage drug use.### Human: Society is a construct. Where do you get this idea that it even really exists and has some sort of narrative? Where do you get the idea that it ought to push it's narrative? Of course no-one wants harm to come to other people but seriously, you're just propping up this top down power structure that dictates to people what is right and wrong. Where does that assumption even come from? Why not my assumption that people do well when left alone? If we have a conscience why aren't we free to use them?### Assistant: Well my guess is that he got the idea from the real world. And you aren't free to use your conscience to do whatever you want because we have laws and societal consequences.

### Human: I believe the most "scientific" stance in Religion is agnosticism. CMV### Assistant: Philosophers say we can't know anything. Scientists say we're going to assume we can and explore the world. Science is a method for turning evidence into theories. One of the principles is burden of proof. An agnostic would have to say there is no determinate evidence of God. Agnosticism is the most philosophically sound. Atheism is the most scientifically sound. Thus the common term Agnostic Atheist.### Human: > Philosophers say we can't know anything. Crappy philosophers say that.### Assistant: Really, I would think that any rational person would say that. Are you taking the position that we can know things for certain?### Human: Yes I am. Any argument against certainty is doomed to failure, because it undercuts itself right out of the gate.### Assistant: How so?### Human: they have to claim to be certain that we can't be certain of anything, which plainly contradicts their own argument. If they aren't certain that certainty is impossible, they haven't successfully refuted the possibility that certainty is possible.### Assistant: They simply claim that they're almost certain in the same way that we are almost certain 1+1=2. We assume that we haven't made mistakes, but we admit that the human mind is fallacious. Yes, I could be wrong, but that's the whole point anyway.

### Human: CMV:(R) or (D) should not be included anywhere on ballots of any kind. Be it initiatives, local or state government elections, or presidential elections.### Assistant: Many states do have "nonpartisan" ballots of the type you describe. [This academic study](http://prq.sagepub.com/content/54/1/7.abstract) concluded from a comparison that: >We find that nonpartisanship depresses turnout and that in nonpartisan contests voters rely less on party and more on incumbency in their voting decisions. The nonpartisan ballot “works,” but how one evaluates the results depends on one's view of the electorate and the purpose of elections. In countries which use a Westminster system (where your local member of Parliament votes by party for the Prime Minister) I don't think it could possibly be justified to remove party ID, considering how rich a piece of information it is. If for example I want to vote for Justin Trudeau for Prime Minister of Canada, I need to vote for whomever happens to be the Liberal party candidate in my riding. And that won't be Justin Trudeau unless I happen to live in his section of Montreal. Even in the US congressional system, I don't think it's justifiable. I can strongly care about which party controls the House or Senate, while recognizing that my individual Congressman is totally unimportant except for whom he votes for Speaker.### Human: > In countries which use a Westminster system (where your local member of Parliament votes by party for the Prime Minister) I'm not sure if you have worded this weirdly, or whether the Westminster System is slightly different in other parts of the world (Which would seem odd seeing as this is where it stems from) and a quick Google doesn't really clarify it, but here in the UK that isn't how it works. Officially the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, though that is just a formality these days. We each vote for who we want as our Member of Parliament for our constituency. There are are 650 constituencies and the winner in each takes a seat in the House of Commons. The party with the majority of the house, i.e. the majority of the MPs, is then considered the winner, and the party leader whomever that maybe, by convention, the Prime Minister. Though they still go through the formality of visiting the Queen and asking her blessing to form a Government. Obviously it can get more complicated, like a hung Parliament which we had in 2010, where no one party held the majority, so parties start teaming up to form a majority Government. In actual fact it was presumed that Gordon Brown would continue to be PM, he had less seats than the Conservatives, but he is could have rallied all the smaller parties to his side he could have formed a majority and continued as PM. However he was seen as tainted, Labour had lost a lot of favour and in reality, the Conservatives had won the most seats. So Brown actually resigned and The Conservatives formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. ~~Dish face~~ David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives then went to the Queen and asked to form a Government. So your local MP does have an affect on who is PM, but only because of the party they represent. They don't vote on a party, I guess, in a way, they are the vote. A lot of people probably vote for their MP based on which party they represent because they want x,y or z leader to to be PM, but strictly speaking, that isn't who you're voting for when you do.### Assistant: I'm very familiar with the Canadian variant of the Westminster system. I was trying to give a one sentence summary of the way parties effectively work within the system, which ignored the formalities surrounding a confidence vote and securing the blessing of the Queen or Governor General.### Human: Gotchya.### Assistant: By the way, if you're in the mood, this is an excellent [funny video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A) on a semi-recent Canadian constitutional crisis where a 3-party coalition tried to form a government 6 weeks after an election when it was clear that the Conservative budget was about to go down in flames.### Human: That's awesome, cheers. Actually really informative. I had no idea how closely Canada's system was to ours. I knew it was similar but it's essentially exactly the same.### Assistant: There's a very small amount of difference in regard to the Senate vs. the Lords (though with the ending of hereditary peers, they're a little more similar). There's also gamesmanship sometimes with appointing the Governor General. Australia had a crisis in the 70s IIRC where the PM was found to not have the confidence of the Commons, and tried to have the GG sacked and a new one put in who would say he did have confidence. But because he had already been found not to have confidence, Queen Elizabeth wouldn't sack the GG.### Human: Sounds like House of Cards. Which isn't too far from the truth considering the original books were written by the ex Chief of Staff for the Conservatives in the 80s.

### Human: CMV: essentially every culture on earth participated in slavery until white people put a stop to it### Assistant: >White people did it too but it was white people who ended it and otherwise there would still be global slavery. I think this part of your argument doesn't really hold up. While slavery may not be seen as culturally acceptable anymore, it is by no means abolished. I believe stats currently show that there are more slaves now than at any other other point in history.### Human: Thanks for the response. You are absolutely right that slavery still exists. The example that jumps to my mind is the hereditary enslavement of pygmies by their Bantu masters in central-eastern Africa. What I should have said is that a global power (in this case Britain) worked to eliminate slavery globally and that now it is universally illegal. Absolutely it still exists, right down to the treatment of south/southeast Asian migrant workers in Saudi Arabia which is a form of slavery. I meant "on the books" slavery is illegal globally now.### Assistant: Although if you consider the Islamic State to be a state, then it's the one state where slavery is officially legal.### Human: Islamic state is not a recognized nation.### Assistant: That's why the comment was prefaced### Human: I was pointing out that it isn't up to personal opinion.### Assistant: Well, evidently some people think its a nation since they founded it...### Human: Yes, but to be a country, existing nations have to acknowledge your independence. Sticking a flag in the ground and shooting some people doesn't make you a country.### Assistant: Of course but I mean **someone** thinks its a nation...

### Human: CMV: Women should not be allowed in the US Marines### Assistant: I think the most important part of the article is this line: >many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs This means that teams with rookies are being compared to teams that may likely have one or more experienced members. This means that their is an inherent flaw that draws any conclusion into serious question. Beyond that, there are many roles that a marine may have to fulfill beyond being able to carry ammo or shoot as accurately as possible. Because of their role in being the forefront of any military action, they will have the first interactions with any native population. There are many cultures where the interactions of men and women are kept separate meaning that having at least a single woman on hand will increase the ease at which you can communicate with those you interact with.### Human: ∆ You raised a very good point about noncombat roles and prior experience.### Assistant: I think a better view to have is that the women should be just as capable as the men but they shouldn't be barred from attempting to become marines.### Human: The problem with that becomes that, even if one woman were to make it in, one woman is required to have all kinds of special needs. Special doctors and facilities, etc. Not to mention the liability to the military of sexual assault. I've never been in the military so I'm not saying this matter of factly, its just my impression.### Assistant: This is the 'logistics argument" against integrating females. It is a lot more legitimate than OP's argument.

### Human: I think people should stop constantly telling women they're pretty, CMV.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Plain looking women on dating sites get plenty of messages a day. Hundreds. They have no trouble accessing sex, but the quality of these men are self-centered and shallow at best. While women can fulfill their basic intimacy needs easier than men, their prospect of finding a meaningful relationship is just as hard, if not harder than a man with the same unlucky genes.### Human: So what we're saying is, the men who aren't self-centered and shallow are making out worse than everybody else in this situation.### Assistant: [2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women.](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/) >As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.

### Human: CMV: The Clintons had no reason to murder to any of the people they are alleged to have murdered, and if they did, the political damage of being caught would greatly outweigh any benefits### Assistant: > murdering all these relatively unimportant people The problem is that they're dead so you don't know whether they were unimportant or not. Think about Monica Lewinsky who was a low-level White House intern, but she certainly had the *potential* to crush the Clinton's political aspirations (even if it didn't turn out that way). The problem is that you don't know what you don't know. And because of that, you don't know what "dirt" these dead individuals had and what impact it could have had on the Clinton's lives.### Human: I think the fact that Monica wasn't murdered despite everything more proves that they're not willing to murder someone for political gain### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: This is the United States, not Russia. The President is not above the law, and it would be almost impossible for someone who is as public and closely monitored as the President to have someone murdered with nobody finding out about it.### Human: Source? There are no examples , and the lack of evidence does not suggest a lack of truth.

### Human: CMV: The use of the white actor Jane Krakowski to play a Lakota Native American part in the new Netflix sitcom "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" is acceptable and not racially insensitive.### Assistant: My biggest complaint is that they played it way too safe, to the point it was clear they weren't comfortable writing comedy about the topic. The parents aren't funny. And the scenes with them are painfully stilted. I recall once the father refers to flying in the "great iron eagle" to NY or somesuch. And then immediately clarifies that of course he knows what an airplane was because he was in the Air Force. The great iron eagle joke isn't that funny, but whatever, some jokes bomb. But the immediate walkback about the Air Force is clearly coming from discomfort. It's unnatural and unrealistic. His wife and daughter would know he was in the Air Force; why is he telling them? It's clear the writers aren't comfortable poking fun at the characters *at all,* which is a bad thing for a comedy. Compare that to the scenes with werewolf costumed Titus. They're comfortable having Titus play around with the treatment of black people, and while the show does play up the racism directed at black people, we also get to laugh at the absurdity of Titus' behavior. You see treating them with respect as a good thing. In the context of a zany comedy, it isn't; it shows discomfort and distance, not respect.### Human: The native American parents were the "straight men" of the joke with the daughter being the "dissonant extrovert" so all of the parents jokes should have fallen flat, so as to give contrast to the daughters lines### Assistant: So I just re-watched the scene (I was at work when I posted, so was going from memory), and I think the issue I had was that the iron eagle wasn't playing it straight. It comes at the crescendo of the scene where they're supposed to be convincing her to visit back home. In the best case it is a groaner dad joke, which doesn't make sense in the context. The mom does have a great line in that scene (genuinely playing it straight): Mom: You've forgotten everything we taught you. Jacqueline: Yeah, well some of the things you taught me were dumb. Like using the whole buffalo. Some parts just aren't good guys. For example: the poop. Mom: No one told you to use the *poop!* Jacqueline (softly): Oh. I dunno, they only have like 3 scenes, so I may be over reading into all of this. I just found them to be not very funny and since they didn't give the characters enough screen time to develop personalities, they come across a bit cookie-cutter to me. Like, inappropriate dad joke dad could be a good thing, but it wasn't developed.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: As did white pioneers and settlers in the region. "Buffalo chips," they're called. http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.ii.007### Human: Asian Steppe tribes (especially in Mongolia and Tibet) still do this, but with Yak poop

### Human: CMV: Nintendo should become a software publisher to focus on putting out the franchises everyone loves while cutting their outdated consoles that very few people want.### Assistant: I don't think I even have to expand on this one: >...while cutting their outdated consoles very few people want [Wii, DS, 3DS sales.](http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/hard_soft/) . Yep, WiiU's poor sales also make an appearance. I don't know. It's not like I am the one who disagrees with this post's title, but more like *the general public* does.### Human: Exactly. Nintendo has had a less than stellar cycle with their Wii U but the company is doing just fine.### Assistant: And even then, I feel the WiiU was a great premise with poor marketing and support. The game pad opens up a ton of options for party games, and I for one would love a renaissance of single-console multiplayer. Point being on the technical and creative side Nintendo still has chops in their console game, and it would be a shame if they quit without properly realizing their vision for the WiiU (not that I think there's much chance of that).### Human: I have Wii-U. I have no complaints.### Assistant: [removed]

### Human: CMV: It is paradoxical to advocate growing the size and scope of the government, but then complain about corruption and a lack of power for the citizen### Assistant: A powerful but responsive state may be likely to be less vulnerable to corruption. If you look at the top ten best countries in Transparency International's [Corruption Perceptions Index](http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015) - in order: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, Germany - only three of these have proportionately less public spending than the United States. Within the US the picture is less clear, [with both big-spending states and small-spending states at the extremes of good and bad performance](http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/measuring-illegal-and-legal-corruption-american-states-some-results-safra), suggesting that at the state level there's no relationship between state capacity and corruption.### Human: So what you're saying is that my premise is wrong. Power does not necessarily corrupt?### Assistant: The government is not a single, cohesive entity. You can increase the size and power of the government without increasing the power of any individual; I.e., without increasing the amount of corruption.### Human: I totally disagree. As you expand the role of government it comes at the cost of freedom. By that I mean when the government is granted oversight over a social function (healthcare, abortion, etc.) it is taken away from the individual. So as the government is expanded it gains power over the individual. Under our system of government this all roles up into an extremely limited amount of spots. POTUS & friends, SCOTUS, and Congress.### Assistant: Yes this is true, but loss of freedom and corruption are different things. A country with high taxes is (arguably) less free than one with low taxes, but the country with low taxes can easily be (and often is) the more corrupt of the two### Human: Unsubstantiated thus ignored.### Assistant: [America and European nations are not particularly corrupt](http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015). [Yet these countries are often on the high end of income Taxes](http://images.turbotax.intuit.com/iqcms/marketing/lib/fun/world-taxes/world-taxes-640.jpg). Compare to Russia, which is extremely corrupt and yet has a low income tax. From what I can tell, income tax and corruption are largely uncorrelated, though I haven't done a full regression. Regardless, you've dismissed my example, without addressing my point: that corruption and loss of freedom are two different things. A corruption often causes a loss of freedom, but a loss of freedom does not inherently cause corruption.### Human: Of course they are two different things... that's why there are two different words. The logic I built was transfer of power from people to government translates to transfer of power to people at the top of government. Then, the previous logic of increased power => increased corruption finishes the link between the link between increased government scope and size and increased corruption at the top. Then you said, idiotically, "WAIT BUT THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS"

### Human: CMV: "Gifted" programs in schools should be seen as a necessity and a priority.### Assistant: The problem is that we treat educational challenges like a prison lunch line. Every day, you get a fixed-size ration of challenges called "schoolwork". It doesn't matter if you can handle more, or if you can't handle that many; you have to take exactly the portion you're told to take. Gifted programs don't actually fix this problem. They just identify certain students that can handle *much* more, and give those students a second ration. The fundamental problem, that education isn't actually something which can or should be dosed into daily rations, isn't addressed. Sure, the very gifted students are better off, but we can't be helping them out *instead of* the others.### Human: You are arguing about what it isn't doing. Normal programs don't do that either. The goal of gifted programs isn't fixing the situation you brought up, which is pretty nominal. The point of handing out work is for the students to learn it, and many years of experience have decided that the allotted portion of homework you see today is the best, not to do what you're saying. It isn't a prison lunch line. It isn't fair. You're using a scarecrow fallacy, which is poorly executed.### Assistant: No, I wouldn't call it a scarecrow argument. And for future reference just naming an argumentative tactic doesn't invalidate what the person is saying. First of all the allotted homework amount for each student may be "best" if you assume each student has to get the same amount of work. (And I think teachers tend to naturally overassign anyway.) The prison line is actually a rather exact metaphor for this specific situation. How could it be that the optimal amount of work is the same for every student?### Human: A scarecrow fallacy is an incorrect form of argumentation, which invalidates what you are saying. We should be prioritizing the students who are having trouble learning, because they need the attention the most. The end product is we need students to learn the information, and that should be the priority. Therefore, put in extra programs that help out struggling students to learn, same as gifted programs. If the gifted students have a higher threshold of learning, then that should be met with gifted programs. As I said, many years of experience and research have determined that the same homework assignments for each student is a great way to have students learn. However, there should be programs put in to place that help students achieve that expected threshold of work, as well as programs to help gifted students learn everything they can.### Assistant: > A scarecrow fallacy is an incorrect form of argumentation, which invalidates what you are saying. No. It invalidates your argument, but you could still be correct. For example, I could use another argument tactic, say, an ad hominem attack, to say the sky is blue: "John said that the sky is red. But would you believe him? He has a mistress after all! The sky is certainly blue." > As I said, many years of experience and research have determined that the same homework assignments for each student is a great way to have students learn. Hasn't this been the exact same since the 1800s? How can you say years of experience and research when we've really only tried one method of teaching students? Also, you're saying a program to help gifted students is a good idea too. But would they get the exact same homework as everyone else? How would you run the gifted program then? Have them learn something new in class, then give them a totally different assignment about it? Finally, to get a little bit closer to the topic, I'm not necessarily in favor of grouping students into buckets. The practice can help gifted students excel, for example, but it can also put struggling students in with other struggling students, which can have a deleterious effect. If you don't see any of your peers excelling, then it's harder to follow an example. When you put struggling students in a gifted program they can sometimes do better. Then maybe you should always put struggling students in a gifted program with various levels of expectations. That's why I think you should have a more individualistic approach to education, rather than segmenting students.

### Human: CMV: Parents are not entitled to unconditional respect from their children just by virtue of being their parents.### Assistant: > This is why I think that giving the reason 'because I said so' is a total cop out. If the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then I don't think they deserve the child's respect. I think you will find that as a parent, this would be an impossible situation. You say that "respect needs to be earned", but isn't this a two way street? Maybe you think the parent who says "because I said so" hasn't done enough to earn the child's respect. But has the child done anything to earn respect either? If the parent tried to rationally explain why they're right to the child, how confident are you that the child will understand and "can admit when they are wrong and that their decisions are well-thought-out". If they can't, then a rational two-way discussion just isn't going to happen. And if such a discussion can't happen yet, what now? Should the parent and child just "agree to disagree"? Of course not. I wouldn't frame it as some kind of "debt" that arises out of giving birth, but I think its pretty widely acknowledged that parents are responsible for their child's behavior, even before the child is wise enough to understand complicated reasoning. As a third part, I *expect* other parents to keep their children in line, even if their children aren't smart enough to understand why certain behavioral expectations exist. And similar phenomena happen for all positions of authority. If a police officer is directing traffic, he doesn't have to explain to you the details of what's going on. You have to listen to him anyway. "Because I said so" would be a perfectly reasonable thing for him to say when him explaining what's going on in more detail would hold up traffic (especially if you then decide for whatever reason that you disagree). Similarly, there are many employer-employee relationships where "because I said so" should be good enough for you. One hopes that there is a good reason behind the requests, but the employee is in no way entitled to a full breakdown of exactly why everything works the way it does, especially when time is of the essence. Its embedded into the nature of these relationships that you follow orders.### Human: I know I wasn't very specific about the scenario in my original post, but this is my first time posting in this subreddit. I believe that it becomes a two way street once the child is able to competently understand how to have arguments. The age most certainly would not be identical in every case, as there are very astute 8-year-olds and very stupid 18-year-olds. If the discussion cannot happen yet, it is a lack of logical development in the child. Then it would make sense for the 'because I told you so' to be in place, since they can't operate as rational agents. I do agree with you in expecting for parents to keep their kids in line. However, I think some areas of behavior are more black and white than others. For example, if their child punches other kids for asking to share their toy, that is a problem. But if a child was constantly bullying another child, then the one on the receiving end decided to finally hit back, I think some parents could misconstrue that as 'misbehaving.' I think your police officer example is very helpful to my own reflection. But I think that the relationship between police officers and civilians isn't identical to parents and children. Of course the civilians need to listen to the police officer in that instance, but there are officers who take the law into their own hands, and I think that the civilian should not be penalized for speaking up if that is the case. I agree with you to a degree on the employee example. That relationship seems to be how things should work in the workplace. However, I don't think it can quite be applied to parenting. The employee is being paid for this deference to the employer. If at any point they get sick of the employer's way of running things, they can leave the company. Of course one could say that the 'payment' children receive is food, shelter, etc. but parents are required by law to provide these things, regardless of the nature of disagreement. If the parent provides such things to the best of their ability and has a sound moral character, then I think they deserve the respect of the child. If the parent is doing the bare minimum of interaction, providing the bare minimum of basic human necessities, and operates the household without the possibility of ever making a mistake, then there is a problem, and I wouldn't blame the child for not respecting them once they are older to think for themselves.### Assistant: Obviously bad parents exist. I'm certainly not disputing that. You correctly note "there are very astute 8-year-olds and very stupid 18-year-olds". But even for those astute 8 year olds, there's a period before they can make these decisions on their own. So I see it as almost universal that there is a period of time in a parent child relationship where "because I said so" is a perfectly valid response. A lack of willingness or ability to try to teach the child how to be a rational thinker and / or a lack of judgment in being able to see when the child has matured are both symptoms of non optimal parenting, but that doesn't change the fact that "because I said so" is almost always appropriate at a certain phase of development.### Human: ∆ I suppose I agree with you on the point that there is a time where 'because I told you so' is necessary for proper parenting. I thought some more about your two analogies, and it seems that there are some instances where 'because I told you so' is fitting, and an explanation at the exact moment in time is impractical. I guess I wasn't being very clear in my original post. I meant for my inquiry to mainly apply to children that are logical thinkers and have some moral development. If I were to say that the question was meant for children who are able to appropriately reason, how would that change your response?### Assistant: I think that as a child matures, more and more discussion takes place, and less and less "because i say so", but the fact of the matter is that a parent that has raised you will always be the only person with that much more life experience than you that knows you so well personally, and therefore there should always be a bit of extra respect. A 12 year old might be able to have a discussion about what their bedtime should be, or if they should have one, but they might not be able to understand why their parents won't let them have a tattoo yet. most people are unable to accept their own immaturity. "Because I said so" might be the best option here. An 17 year old should be able to have the maturity to have that rational conversation about having a tattoo. But they might not be able to understand why they can't have a car. "My older sister had a car at 17, why can't I?" Perhaps the parents know that they aren't able to deal with that kind of responsibility yet, a lot of 17 year olds can't. or maybe they are a shit driver, and can't admit it to themselves. They might not be able to get an answer they understand out of their parents. A 25 year old can buy their own damn car, and get tattoos and do whatever they want, but when their parents tell them they shouldn't marry that girl they met a few weeks ago, sure they don't *have* to listen to them. But if they respected their parents opinions and that they might know better, they might wait a few months before rushing into something.### Human: I agree with most of the examples that you set forth in this post. However, I do not think that being alive longer necessarily translates into deserving of automatic respect. But every case is different I suppose. It is how the parent goes about their dealings with their children that I think deserves respect. Once the child is able to understand logical arguments, I don't think that 'because I told you so' is acceptable anymore. It becomes more of a two-way street once the child is getting closer to adulthood.### Assistant: It is not just about being alive longer, parents by definition were able successfully raise children (to a minimal standard of them being alive to have these arguments). That has become increasingly easy to do in the western world thanks to medicine and lack of food scarcity, but it still imparts valuable experience to parents.

### Human: Fred Phelps and the "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church have done more to promote gay rights and secular thought than almost any other single group. CMV### Assistant: For one thing, I'm pretty sure the actual gay rights activists who have put themselves on the line to forward equality have done way more for gay rights than the WBC, as have politicians who have proposed real legislation, and judges who have ruled in favor of equality. For another thing, even though I think everyone can agree the WBC is insanely wrong on this issue, their existence creates something of a false middle ground, whereby someone who is horribly homophobic can say, I may not agree with the "gay agenda," but at least I'm not at the WBC level of homophobia. The desire to appear moderate is a powerful motivator, and the fact is that the WBC and similar groups are not the major opposition to equality for gay people in the USA, it's the mainstream conservative political party.### Human: It is the hallmark of anti-gay bigotry to "hate the sin, not the sinner". Calling for a kinder, more temperate form of hatred is something that "love-based" forms of bigotry get huge righteousness boners over. People on FOX News were not defending gays against having their civil rights trampled on. They were defending them from having their funerals picketed. Moreover, the WBC has been doing this for decades with almost no response from moderate conservatives. It wasn't until they started picketing the funerals of straight soldiers that anyone gave two shits about what they were doing.### Assistant: So disagreeing with a persons choices is an immoral act? What makes it hateful? They are against the person's actions not the person. Could you explain more, I simply was not aware of such an important belief.### Human: Disagreeing with a person's "choice" to live their lives in a manner that does no harm to anyone else to the point that you would turn the full force and authority of a massive institution against them with the aim of seeing those people hospitalized against their will, treated against their will, denied equal rights under the law, treated as second class citizens, fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, jailed, or denied the right to their children is kind of a dick move. I would add, that for all the shit the WBC has done, one thing they never did is lobby the government to legislate against gay people. Because they think everyone is fucked. It took "moderates" to strip us of our rights.### Assistant: Are you for the hospitalization of the mentally ill? People with harmless delusions? The eviction and firing is the choice of the individual to associate with other people. If I had my way anyone could discriminate against anyone for any reason (in matters of association like business) I don't see a right to adoption any where.### Human: And that's why I would consider you a bad person.### Assistant: Being in favor of the individuals right to free association is bad?### Human: You seem to be against my right to freely associate with my partner if they were to be hospitalized.### Assistant: Nope, the hospital makes that choice.

### Human: CMV: Being a parent isn't a noble/heroic thing### Assistant: You are quite literally bringing in the next generation of humanity, the human race could not survive without parents. There is nothing more important for the long term survival of the human race than being a parent. It sounds more like you are sick of the ATTITUDE of some parents, rather than not thinking it is a noble act.### Human: > You are quite literally bringing in the next generation of humanity, the human race could not survive without parents. But it's not like we have any shortage of kids or we are in any major risk of not surviving.### Assistant: Just building off what the last comment said. If highest birth rates *are* in poorer/less educated communities, it actually might be noble for well-off, well-educated couples to make some sacrifices to either have a child or adopt and therefore instill some of the values that lead them to where they are. I don't think that simply being a parent is noble, but being a good parent is something worth while and should be respected in my opinion.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: So, obviously, anyone rich inherited it and anyone intelligent is only intelligent because they were born rich? I'm not saying that all wealthy people are virtuous and intelligent and I'm not saying that all poor people are stupid and lazy. I am saying that a gene pool needs diversity and if all of the offspring of an entire generation are from the same socioeconomic class, then we will have a smaller pool of skills and values to draw from. I'd be scared if only intelligent, rich people were having children and I'd be scared if only simpler, poor people were having children. I'm lucky to consider myself lower-middle to middle-middle class because I live in a very cheap region and because I work very hard. I see my peers making sacrifices and working their asses off so that they can support a family. I also have peers that had children in their teens with no education and cannot provide care for their child without parental or governmental assistance. There's nothing wrong with requiring external assistance, but someone has to be there to pay for those assisting programs. I think it's very likely that the child of my hard working couple friends *could* become someone dependent on the system just as easily as the child from the less forward-thinking patent could become the provider in my scenario, but I also think that the child of the responsible, forward-thinking couple has the distinct advantage of seeing what it takes to be a productive member of society.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I think we have different definitions of "rich" and "well-off" then. When I use those terms, I'd consider anyone middle class rich. The people referenced in the article you pointed to, then would be considered average or poor. I meant "intelligent" rather than "well-educated." You haven't argued with anything that I said, you just examined my phrasing. My point is that being a "good" parent -- whether poor, middle-class, or super wealthy -- holds value and could be consider virtuous. Being irresponsible and simply making a baby is not virtuous in and of itself.

### Human: CMV: Cultural appropriation is not something to be feared and it's not racist.### Assistant: I think you are misunderstanding the point of cultural appropriation. It's not that only a member of a given culture has any right to use objects, designs, patterns, etc. that come from that culture. The biggest problem is when other people borrow one piece of a culture without taking a moment to understand context. A prime example is the [war bonnet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bonnet), as it's frequently appropriated. In reality, a war bonnet is an object with deep cultural, or even spiritual importance. They're used almost exclusively for ceremonial purposes. The feathers aren't just given away, they're earned by acts of valor, or other service to the tribe. When people wear them just as some sort of [fancy hat](https://www.google.com/search?q=war+bonnet+hipster&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=839&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIkeC0naXCxwIVCBGSCh3Q1wn-), that shows a deep lack of respect for another culture. It's not just that you're taking an object, it's that you couldn't be bothered to even simply understand what that object actually means. It would be somewhat similar to someone from another culture coming along, and deciding they like the way our western [military dress uniforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_uniform#/media/File:Household_Cavalry.jpg) look, right down to the sword and the medals, so they were going to go wear that to a party. Not only would they probably get a lot of the details wrong, they're unintentionally pretending to be something they're not, and pretending to have earned an honor they haven't. The other type of culture appropriation might be closer to what you're saying is ok, but I believe it's still a problem. It's when people try to imitate a culture, but fail so miserably that they end up creating a caricature instead. This is what you're talking about with things like "Cowboys and Indians" parties. We can imagine what if people did the same thing with British culture. What if everybody's idea of a British person was Dick Van Dyke's character from Mary Poppins, stupid accent and all? What if every time you met someone, they had to make some stupid joke in a Cockney accent, because that movie was the only thing they knew about your culture? Right now, that Dick Van Dyke stereotype exists, but it's different from more problematic stereotypes for one really big reason, which is that no one actually believes it's true, not really. People have a huge amount of exposure to British culture, with TV shows, movies, news, and music made by British people introducing people to other aspects of British culture all the time. The cultures that have problems with cultural appropriation don't have that big advantage. Often the vast majority of the exposure they get is in the form of stereotypes, which means they're always fighting uphill against misconceptions and misunderstandings in order to actually give any sort of realistic information to others about their culture. How much do you know about Native American culture from the United States that didn't come from old Westerns, bad Halloween costumes, or other culturally appropriated sources?### Human: Solid point- I was aware that the war bonnet was ceremonial, but not the significance of the feathers. I don't have a problem with people wearing military dress to parties or as Halloween costumes- in fact in someways it's almost satirical, and I have family members in the British armed forces and I can't imagine they would have an issue with it either. If everyone understands that it is a caricature then what's the issue? It's not like we are white washing the history that comes with these items, it's still there to explore if people would like to. My own knowledge of Native Americans is pretty focused around more spiritual areas, creation stories, medicine men, totem animals and so on in which I'm probably more versed than a layman but hardly an expert. While you haven't changed my view on the core concept- I still don't think cultural appropriation should be viewed as racist or as something to be afraid of, you have given me something to think about- thanks.### Assistant: > I don't have a problem with people wearing military dress to parties or as Halloween costumes- in fact in someways it's almost satirical, and I have family members in the British armed forces and I can't imagine they would have an issue with it either. Some people do find it offensive, even most people. Here in the US, we've tried to make it actually illegal, and there are people in the UK who apparently would like to do that as well, though there haven't been any laws passed. I don't know that what *you* or even your close friends and family personally find offensive is a valid metric for what *everyone* should find offensive. > If everyone understands that it is a caricature then what's the issue? Not everyone does understand it's a caricature. For most people, this is as close as they get to a given culture, and it's really easy to assume the caricature is at least close to accurate when it's frequently not in the slightest. > I still don't think cultural appropriation should be viewed as racist or as something to be afraid of Cultural appropriation isn't racist by itself, largely because it's usually done unintentionally. When your particular actions are pointed out to you as culturally insensitive and you keep doing them anyway, that's when it becomes a problem, and *possibly* racist. It sounds like your view is that people are morally ok to continue cultural appropriation even when the problem has been pointed out to them, and they've been asked to stop. There's two ways I see to make that make sense: 1) We shouldn't care what anybody thinks. No one should be offended by anything, and we should ignore anyone that is offended, even by really heinous, hideous stuff. That doesn't sound like the recipe for a polite society, but at least it's *fair*. 2) We shouldn't care about what *certain* people think. The majority of people should define what is Offensive^TM and only violations of that standard should be enforced. Anyone offended by something that is not Offensive^TM should be ignored, especially minority opinions. In an ideal world, that would work fine, but in the real world, that sounds like an invitation for racism.### Human: > Some people do find it offensive, even most people. Here in the US, we've tried to make it actually illegal, and there are people in the UK who apparently would like to do that as well, though there haven't been any laws passed. The main reason I see for making wearing accurate military uniforms (or police uniforms for that matter) illegal in a country where they are used is to prevent people from pretending they are actual military authorities, not because people could be offended by it.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: I think gifted kids should receive more attention than special needs children### Assistant: The reason special needs kids get so much attention is that they need more hands on teaching and care to get to the minimum level of being able to function and survive. They are not being cared for to get them to the level of excelling, but to just the bare minimum that is below average. Gifted children are much more self reliant (in fact that is one of the defining traits) and do far better than average all on their own without any additional help, often excelling without help as well. When choosing the allocation of resources (including teachers and time) it is best to focus on getting everyone to the minimum accepted level rather than sacrificing large segments of the population to helping those who are already doing very well do better.### Human: Valid point, but as I say in my post, I don't mean 3 or 4 teachers for 5 gifted kids or so (about as many as are in my school) I mean one teacher, even part time, that gives some extra work. As I said, my gifted friends get incredibly bored and even skip school and like in the example I gave, even consider dropping out because the school won't hire an extra part time teacher to give some extra or higher level work.### Assistant: Why are your gifted friends not contacting Universities to take dual-credit courses while in high school online or at the local university via night classes? That is what the gifted kids at my school did. I had one friend that started college as a Junior after he graduated High School because he had so many dual-credit and extra summer/night courses taken through a local college.### Human: I've never actually heard of this, but I found the dual credit program for my district, it offers mostly trades, something that I definitely don't want to get into and I don't think my friends do either. http://www.sd23.bc.ca/ProgramsServices/CareerLifePrograms/dualcredit/Documents/Dual%20Credit%20Application%202013_1.pdf### Assistant: Unfortunately being in a relatively small city will limit your in-person choices. I would suggest looking into some online coursework that will push you further. UBC offers an online program for high school students [that you can read up on here](http://students.ubc.ca/enrolment/courses/non-degree/access#high-school).### Human: That looks interesting, I'll keep that in mind for when I get into High School. Thanks. Kinda sucks that the 3rd biggest city in my province is still too small to have any kind of good program for kids who excel in school like a [IB program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate)### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I guess we're just not noteworthy at all ;(. But we did have the [first Carls Jr in Canada!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna#Kelowna.27s_use_as_a_market_trial_location)### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Lots of private schools and even more religious schools.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life.### Assistant: I'm assuming for this CMV you are talking about physician assisted suicide, many prisoners already commit suicide in prison by a variety of means. If you are talking about physician assisted suicide, why should prisoners have a right that the vast majority of the population does not? While you might be saving some money off prisoners choosing to end their own life, it seems you might also be incentivizing others looking to end their own life in such a manner to commit crimes to take advantage of this option.### Human: I'll specify and try to answer your point. >If you are talking about physician assisted suicide, why should prisoners have a right that the vast majority of the population does not? Yea I think physician assisted suicide could be a way, they could also hang or shoot the prisoner. So not just that. I do think that in the US people should be able to end their own life via assisted suicide. Prisoners can't really fix the problems they are facing in prison. They have no real escape. >it seems you might also be incentivizing others looking to end their own life in such a manner to commit crimes to take advantage of this option. And what is the problem with that exactly? As long as they are adult, and not directly harming someone. Why shouldn't they be allowed to put themselves in prison so they can end their life?### Assistant: I've always thought one of the unspoken caveats to the legality of suicide is that it's an option that can never truly be taken away from someone. A capable person will always have ways to end their own lives no matter how many laws are against it or what means, such as guns, are taken away from them.### Human: For the most part I agree with you. Some prisoners are confined to isolation though.### Assistant: I should have said almost never. We can put people in strait jackets and padded rooms.

### Human: CMV: The reduction of suffering is more important than the preservation of life.### Assistant: You give the options between alleviation of suffering and continuation of life, but you ignore a factor that I think should be the most important one: personal choice. If someone gives explicit instructions that he would rather live while suffering, who are you to tell him that he's wrong? I know it often works the other way around now, but your moral structure in this argument doesn't take choice into account.### Human: I guess I didn't make it very clear, but I'm assuming you are referring to the euthanasia argument. Let me clarify: I'm only talking about situations where the individual is in a state where they are incapable of making decisions, such as in a coma or severely mentally incapacitated. Of course personal choice should rule, but I think that when they aren't capable of making such a decision then the family should be able to decide.### Assistant: What if they explicitly told their family not to while they weren't unable to make that decision?### Human: You mean like if they had previously said "If I become a vegetable, don't pull the plug?". I don't think it's right for someone to expect that their family suffer through such an ordeal just to keep them alive. It's kind of like if I told my family I wanted to be buried in an Egyptian tomb full of gold when I died. Doesn't actually mean they're morally obligated to do so.### Assistant: It's not always that black-and-white. What if there's a chance of survival in the coma situation? Are you comfortable giving life-and-death power to someone else over the wishes of the person whose life is the actual subject of debate in any situation?

### Human: CMV: Religious tollerance is pointless, religions are not equal and have no place in modern society### Assistant: It seems to me that a large part of your belief stems from the fact that you want to impose on religion a literalist reading of the scripture the religion claims to follow. (You say that to be Christian is to accept that homosexuality is a sin and that those who purport to be Christian and not believe homosexuality is a sin is to simply be ignorant of the scripture.) But for many religious people, accepting that their scripture is literally true is not a tenant of their faith. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't insist on a literal reading of the Bible. There are certainly people in every religion with a scripture that insist that the scripture is the literal 100% truth, but it is far from the case that one must accept that to be a member of any given faith. And once you see that religion doesn't entail a literal reading of that religion's scripture, it seems most of your objection disapears. Because the "regressive views" of the religion that you see religion entailing are not necessarily part of the religion (though, again, they are part of the religion for many people).### Human: This is true to some extent. However if you identify as christian you need to accept that the most widly used metric of Christian beleifs is the bible. I understand that there are many diferent interpretations of each religion however if the first thing I hear about your beleifs is that you are christian it is up to you to provide evidence that you do not fall into the much greater category of Christian beleifs that are ostensibly evil. If i claim to be a Nazi, it is up to me to explain those beleifs further if I dont want to be branded with all the stigma that comes with that set of beleifs.### Assistant: >However if you identify as christian you need to accept that the most widly used metric of Christian beleifs is the bible. That's true, to an extent, but the vast majority of Christians do not accept the Bible as the 100% literal truth and most do not accept it as the only source of truth. By judging the whole religion (and really Christainity is better understood as religions than a religion) by the standard a minority of sects within the religion would apply, you are going about things backwards. If you meet a Christian and know nothing about that person other than the fact that they identify as a Christian, the smart bet is that they don't believe the Bible is 100% literally true. And with that being the case, the logical stance would be to assume that they hold the majority opinion within the faith rather than the minority position. >it is up to you to provide evidence that you do not fall into the much greater category of Christian beleifs that are ostensibly evil. I guess part of what I find confusing about your view is this. Other than the Christian position of homosexuality (which is far more diverse than you seem to give Christan's credit for) which of the views of the faith do you see as evil? My guess is that you've listened to some particularly hateful members of the group and allowed them to convince you that they speak for the whole group when, in fact, they don't.### Human: the primary issue I find with it is that it provides an ethical out to any evil deed. By Christian morals Brevik will make it to heaven and Ghandi will not. I think it is terrible that all a person must do to atone is to beleive in Jesus. There is no consideration of the greater good of the world, only your faith matters, not your actions. On top of this the Old Testament is full of nonsense that I do not believe even the most hardline Christians believe.### Assistant: >By Christian morals Brevik will make it to heaven and Ghandi will not. It seems kind of odd that you are concerned about whether or not a person goes to a place you don't believe exists. On your view, no one goes to Heaven, so what does it matter who other people think can go there or not? >all a person must do to atone is to beleive in Jesus But no Christian believes that. At its most extreme the Christian position is that you need belief in Jesus AND genuine contrition. Belief in God is not enough, you must also believe that what you did was wrong and sincerely intend to never do it again. And that's before you take into account that most Christians believe that non-believers can go to Heaven (again the Catholics, the world's largest denomination are clear on this point). >the primary issue I find with it is that it provides an ethical out to any evil deed. And this is where I think your lack of nuance in understanding Christian theology is causing you problems. Forgiveness isn't an ethical out, your evil deeds continue to be evil, they continue to be unethical, but out of an abundance of love God may chose to forgive those actions. Think of it this way, if you cheat on your spouse and he or she forgives you, that's not an out, cheating was still wrong, but you may avoid the worst outcomes of your action. That doesn't make it unreasonable for your spouse to forgive you. >On top of this the Old Testament is full of nonsense that I do not believe even the most hardline Christians believe. This is a whole separate issue. But I can't see what your point is here. The Bible says things no one believes, so it is wrong to hold the beliefs of Christians? That seems backwards. X is clearly false, you don't believe X, but a book you find value in says X, so you are wrong? Take, for example, On the Origin of the Species. I think it's relatively indisputable that particular work is the foundation for modern biology. I think it's also realistically indisputable that there are things in that book which are false and which no modern biologist believes. We wouldn't conclude from those facts that biology has no place in the modern world. Instead we accept that the text contained a large set of very valuable ideas which needed to be further refined over time to get closer and closer to the truth. Why should we apply a different standard to the two texts?### Human: >Take, for example, On the Origin of the Species. I think it's relatively indisputable that particular work is the foundation for modern biology. I think it's also realistically indisputable that there are things in that book which are false and which no modern biologist believes. We wouldn't conclude from those facts that biology has no place in the modern world. Instead we accept that the text contained a large set of very valuable ideas which needed to be further refined over time to get closer and closer to the truth. Why should we apply a different standard to the two texts? I already agreed with you throughout much of this post, but I've never really thought of it this way. I really appreciated this perspective. Thank you.### Assistant: I'm glad you found it helpful.

### Human: I think abstract art is just an excuse for bad artists to pass off their work as art. CMV.### Assistant: >I don't understand how people can really think that something that could have been made by a kindergartner is really art You're making a mistake that a lot of people do when thinking about art. I hear people use the world "art" like it carries some sort of virtue of its own, like it's something to be aspired to, but the word "art" is just a category. Any means of personal expression is by definition art, but that doesn't make it good art, and it doesn't mean you have to like it. It's no different than calling something a chair. If a thing has four legs and a seat and a backrest, it's a chair, but that doesn't mean it's comfortable or well-made. [This guy filled tin cans with his own shit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit) and it was displayed in art museums all over the world. A single can went for €124,000 at auction. Is this art? Absolutely. I think it's absolutely terrible art, but it's still art. You don't have to like it, but it brings legitimate joy and enrichment to the lives of some people. EDIT: I deliberately picked a ridiculous example from the end of the crazy spectrum to make a point. Like I said, I don't think that Artists's Shit is a brilliant work of art, and I don't feel like I have to defend it. If you want abstract art to argue the value of, look first at a Rothko or Pollock or Picasso or Duchamp or Mondrian or Kandinsky.### Human: This is what I can't really fathom though. I totally understand the point you are trying to make, and that the category of art includes things that are literally shitty. I get that art is about expressing what the artist feels, and that it doesn't necessarily take a lot of talent. However, what ideas are you exactly expressing by shitting in a can? What makes his canned shit different from mine? If a can of shit brings €124,000 worth of joy and enrichment to someone's life, why don't they just cut out the middle man, shit in a can themselves, and save what some people would make in 10 years? I feel like this "artist" was just trying to stir up some controversy in order to get some rich hipster to think "oh, everyone hates this thing, so obviously I must have it" and spend that much money on it. I think that this degrades true artists who are actually dedicating their life to creating masterpieces that truly express what they are feeling while simultaneously creating a negative sentiment about the art world. This would turn many aspiring artists with actual talent away from realizing their potential if they know that some dude with a can of shit or a blank piece of paper will earn more money or provoke more thought than they probably ever will.### Assistant: Shitting in a can could express plenty of things. The expression could be as meta as the irony of it all: that the artist could literally package his own shit, call it art, and sell it for lots of money. The artist would be criticizing his own field, and even his own works, by doing so. He would be questioning how far society is willing to extend the definition of art. You've gotta be honest, that's at least a little bit thought-provoking. And like it or not, it's probably elicited some kind of emotional reaction from you, right? Even if it's just, "That's disgusting, that's not art" (a reaction which is probably exactly what the artist was shooting for). >If a can of shit brings €124,000 worth of joy and enrichment to someone's life, why don't they just cut out the middle man, shit in a can themselves, and save what some people would make in 10 years? Sure, anyone could shit in a can, but this guy actually *did*, before anyone else thought of it. The fact that it's something that hasn't been done before is why it can pull in the money it does. Not all artists are going to be (or want to be) aesthetic geniuses like Michelangelo, and that's fine. Aesthetic value is only one dimension of art, anyways. Expression and creating discussion are also very important parts to artwork. An artist could write a philosophy paper questioning at what point weird stuff stops being art and is reduced to simply being weird stuff, or he could shit in a can and try to put it in a gallery. Which do you think would have more impact? *Disclaimer: I have no clue what shitting in cans was actually trying to accomplish. I am not an art historian and don't know the context surrounding the particular work. This is merely my interpretation - remember, art is subjective.*### Human: ∆ That was epic. This comment just shifted my entire view of what these artists might be trying to accomplish. I've never looked at it from this angle before; I've always just assumed that the people that did this were total bullshitters trying to stir up some controversy. The fact that they could be trying to say that society has reduced what can be called art by so much that they can seriously shit in a can and sell it for hundreds of thousands of euros is pretty mind fucking. You're right, this would be much more thought provoking and gain much more attention than writing a paper about when art just becomes weird stuff. That being said, I still think the person who bought it did so because everyone else thought it was stupid. They may or may not have had the same realization that I did, but, at least in my opinion, it does not take a doctor's yearly compensation to change someone's view.### Assistant: Thanks for my first delta! I'm glad I maybe gave you a new perspective to look at things from. As far as the buyer, don't forget that rich people will sometimes collect pretty weird stuff just because they can afford to. Maybe the person collects controversial art for the story behind it. Or the buyer is an art historian or successful fellow abstract artist. Doesn't have to be a contrarian hipster, necessarily.### Human: /u/velocipeder mentions below that these people could just be creative businessmen. They buy it because they know at some point down the road, either another creative businessman or your average hipster will buy it. It'd be pretty badass to say you made a lot of money selling another person's feces.

### Human: CMV: Technology is making us smarter### Assistant: The rise in political polarization and anti-intellectualism in the West seems to correlate with Internet access. The Internet, specifically social media, enables people to find echo chambers that reenforce their preconceived notions of how the world is. A creationist who is otherwise engaged with the real world can spend literally every waking hour virtually surrounded by other people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.### Human: And a Darwinist can find the equivalent...### Assistant: I am not sure but I don't think that the same thing would happen around a scientific theory. Why do you think it would?### Human: I'm talking to you aren't I?### Assistant: I'm sorry, I don't follow.

### Human: CMV: To be a Libertarian, one must either have great faith in people OR care little for any but their own### Assistant: I will preface this by saying that I am an American. I would consider myself to be a libertarian in most senses of the word. The crux of my alignment with libertarian principles is as follows: The government tends - much of the time, not always - to ruin things when they take those things into their hands. The government is slow, it is old-fashioned, it does not adapt well, it is very large, very impersonal, and horrendously inefficient, and it is ill-suited to make decisions about what is best for me. This doesn't even touch on corruption and money in politics. Even more simply than that, I would like the government to keep their hands off of my stuff. I would like them to leave my rights alone, leave my money alone, leave my belongings alone. On a larger scale, that may create the perception that I trust the larger public to do the job better. I would argue that, were the government not able to be described the ways I just described them, that's how things would be anyway. We have a belief and expectation of democracy to reflect the views of the majority. In my eyes, that is not the case, and our current incarnation of a democracy is not serving that purpose. The specific example I lean on here is limited to an American view, but the principles are still there. The libertarian view is that the government should have limited power, and that the individual should retain as many freedoms as possible. Note how this differs from anarchy, where there is no government. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but some of your concern seems to be rooted in the symptoms of anarchy, not libertarianism. Your view is taking a very "Better the Devil You Know" approach, whereas mine sees the way things currently are under a non-libertarian approach and realizes that it is unsatisfactory. Seeing as you cannot see an improvement without change, a shift to libertarianism is a favorable change in my eyes.### Human: Oh, believe me, I'm not 'better the Devil you know', and I'm actually simpatico with a lot of Libertarian arguments. I didn't come on here to tell Libertarians they are wrong or dicks, but to learn. One way to do that is to put out a challenge, get people thinking, and measure the responses. :) That out of the way... a question: How limited? Where is the line? What differentiates Libertarianism from Anarchy, or from the next more governmental step?### Assistant: I don't know that I'm the most qualified person to make the call here. Obviously, it depends on who you ask. If I had to try to narrow it down, I would have to say the following: There are a number of pre-established philosophical tenets at play, but perhaps the closest description of a libertarian utopia (in my mind, anyway) is one where the people have the highest amount or greatest number of personal freedoms without infringing on those same freedoms of others. Freedoms would only be withheld were they to detriment others more than they helped any given individual. This works in shades of grey, and of course everything is up for debate: metrics, the definition of "detriment", etc. I don't know that there's any sort of definitive model or set of perfect circumstances to strive for, per se. Rather, the idea is to back off on government meddling, increase freedoms for the individual, and make each day better than the last in terms of maximizing this system's benefit on society.### Human: Is there belief that corporate powers should also be restricted? My impression so far has been that the powers corporate interests yield are not nearly as much of a concern as those the government yields. If so, why is this? Is it because corporations cause trouble and harm and meddle in an indirect fashion, or they follow NIMBY pretty well?### Assistant: Sorry this took so long to get back to. Personally, I think the government/corporate comparison is a false dichotomy. With lobbying and money fueling so much of the deplorable actions in today's politics, I think the problem lies in the hands of both. I think corporate powers *should* be restricted if said powers decrease the freedoms of people; corporations are not people and do not necessarily have certain rights guaranteed to them. The best and probably most topical example of this is net neutrality. I am heavily in favor of net neutrality, but its existence is contingent on some sort of governing body (not necessarily the US government, but the ends justify the means IMO) enforcing said neutrality. This is a great example of not only keeping corporations from acting against the individual, but also the benefits that could be gained by getting money out of politics. It is painfully obvious that the only reason any Congressperson would vote against net neutrality is if someone was lining their pockets (or they're incredibly oblivious). This sort of glosses over many of the other corollaries of such a system, but that's not what you asked about.### Human: I have gotten the impression that Libertarianism, executed faithfully, is an excellent, principled approach. It's only weakness is the same weakness of all prescriptive ideologies- that people aren't the same and can't seem to last long at doing good. Sigh.

### Human: CMV: Celebrities should have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy and tabloids should have some merit before coming up with gossip stories.### Assistant: They do have a reasonable right to privacy and tabloids will get in trouble for any illegally obtained video or photos. But if the celebrity is visible from a public space, or in a public space they have no expectation of privacy. No one has an expectation of privacy in those situations legally so why should celebrities get extra legal protections? Slander is also a crime, but the standard of proving slander is high and rightly so because it is a serious crime. Most tabloids do not qualify as slander because they are known to be false gossip stories made for entertainment.### Human: !delta Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. The only thing that I would honestly argue is that if there are paparazzi standing outside and aiming cameras at their property, like many often do, it should still be considered illegal, even if they are technically on city property, because they are trying to get a glimpse of private property (the interior of their homes.) other than that, I completely agree and you made the other side of the argument really make sense, thanks :)### Assistant: It is not illegal to take a picture of private property if you can see it from public property. Why should celebrities get special protections in this?### Human: Because if they are aiming cameras into their homes, the intent is to see what is inside. Would you like it if someone was standing outside of your house and was video taping you and your family doing your every day tasks such as eating and possibly showering? I believe it is an invasion of privacy. Aiming cameras at the door or around the house should be perfectly legal, but attempting to view what is going on inside the house should not be, for most people expect some form of privacy### Assistant: If they were on the public spaces around my house they could not see inside it save for a small part of my living room if the door is open. So it is fine to me. In order to see the private spaces they would have to be on my property or in my home. That is trespassing so I would call the police or shoot them (I live in a State with Castle doctrine).### Human: I wanted to tag onto this, I don't think that it's unfair to want to be comfortable in your own home. Paparazzi sit around people's homes for HOURS waiting for the right moment to snap a photo. I find that to be the biggest invasion of privacy, regardless of if they're on public property or not. Isn't it an invasion of privacy that you now have to check everything that you do around the house? Can't open the blinds because there's going to be 20 cameras sitting across the street waiting to snap a photo of me. Can't leave my garage to take my kids to the park, because I'll have ten dudes waiting to ask me a dozen questions, or worse, taunt me and try to get me to hit them for a good picture. I'm not saying that it doesn't come with the territory, they knew what they were signing up for when becoming a part of the spotlight in America. But maybe it's a little much for people to be around your house for multiple hours of the day? If it were a regular person, and they had ten guys with cameras taking photos of them from across the street for 12+ hours a day, we'd usually call that stalking or harassment but it somehow falls into a different category once you're a celebrity?

### Human: I believe the US stock market operates primarily as a large scale Ponzi Scheme. Please CMV### Assistant: From the wiki page of [Stocks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock): > The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. So its not true at all that "You're buying a token that you can do absolutely nothing with, other than sell it to somebody else later.", as you claim. You are, roughly, buying ownership of a company, a company whose managers, directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, ie you. The shareholder are, in the end, in charge of the company, the managers can't go against their wishes (off course if you only hold 0.0000001% you can't force them to do anything, but you get the idea) without breaching their fiduciary duty, which is illegal. You don't seem to understand why stocks have value so I'll give a few reasons: Owning stocks can earn you money from dividends. Owning stocks can earn you money from share buy-back. Owning stocks means, in a way, that you own the companies assets (minus debt). Assets are worth money even if they don't produce any income (people buy houses even if they don't rent them out, people buy expensive cars for personal use, etc). Owning stocks gives you (partial) control of a company, allowing you to take advantage of all of the above. Now, you also claim that dividends are quite low compared to the stock price, which is completely true, but this misses an important point. With interest rates so low (almost 0 in the US and Europe) you could earn very little money from buying stocks, and it would still be worth it. For instance, you could buy a stock that pays $2 for $100 and it would still be more profitable than investing in US treasure bonds (as they aren't inflation protected). Sure, the income you get from owning stocks is rather low, but most interest rates are low as well. You can see the dividend yields in the [WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html), and they seem decent enough, much better than investing in treasure bonds in any case. So it seems quite clear that owning stocks does, in fact, give you enough income for it to be worthwhile (compared to stuffing your money in the mattress in any case). Individually, none of these reasons are important enough, but combined I think they can explain the situation well enough. Besides this, I think giving the specific definition of a ponzi scheme will help you understand why the stock market isn't one. From [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp): "A **fraudulent** investing scam **promising** high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop." The stock market is most definitely not a fraudulent investing vehicle, if it were the law would have shut it down a long time ago. But most importantly, they don't promise you anything. When you buy a stock you know perfectly well what you are buying, you know if the company offers dividends, if it is planning on doing a share buyback, you can check its financial records, you can check the rights you have as a shareholder, etc. Because you don't have guaranteed returns, its not necessary to bring in more investors or for the scheme to unravel, sure if no new investors come the stock price might stagnate but this isn't the same as a ponzi scheme, they never claimed the price wouldn't stagnate, they never guaranteed you any returns, and if no new investors buy the stock it won't mean the company will suddenly go broke. I know this is a bit technical but its really important, the stock market isn't fraudulent and it doesn't guarantee you any returns, so it can't be a ponzi scheme. It might be a horrible investment, but not a ponzi scheme. Last but not least, in my opinion a sustainable ponzi scheme isn't a real ponzi scheme. Now, how to know if an investment is sustainable or not is quite difficult, but one way of looking at it might be the Prices/Earning Ratio. This ratio tells us how much the stock is worth compared to how much money the company earns. If the ratio increases it means that people are buying much more of the stock but the company isn't earning more money, which is unsustainable if its constantly increasing. The PE ratio is [stable](http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PE-Ratios-and-Market-Valuation.php) on the long run but fluctuates a lot in the short run. This means that there are times in which there are unsustainable increases in the price of stocks in the stock market, but not in the long term. As time passes more people invest in the stock market, but the increases are comparable to increases in the earning of the companies, which depend on the size of the company. TLDR: You can earn decent money on the stock market, enough to explain the price of the stocks. The stock market isn't a ponzi scheme because its not fraudulent and it doesn't guarantee high returns.### Human: >The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. I'm aware of the theoretical options that being a stockholder grants you, but any scenario where your average investor can do anything other than sell the stock later to another investor really is the exception and not the rule. >Now, you also claim that dividends are quite low compared to the stock price, which is completely true, but this misses an important point. With interest rates so low (almost 0 in the US and Europe) you could earn very little money from buying stocks, and it would still be worth it. For instance, you could buy a stock that pays $2 for $100 and it would still be more profitable than investing in US treasure bonds (as they aren't inflation protected) There's an important difference between putting money into a savings account or bond that pays x% and buying a stock with a x% dividend. You could buy a $100 stock that pays $2 annually, but you have no idea if you're going to be able to get your original $100 back when you're done with it. You could get your $2/year for 10 years, only to find that the stock now trades at $70 instead of $100. Because the speculative value is the primary factor in what stocks trade at in today's market, this is a very real concern and very real possibility. >Besides this, I think giving the specific definition of a ponzi scheme will help you understand why the stock market isn't one. From Investopedia: "A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop." If you take the words with negative connotations out of that definiton (e.g. fraudulent, scam), it actually describes the stock market very well. It does promise high rates of return with little risk in the long run. Nearly every financial analyst I've ever spoken with will argue that in the long run the market always goes up. It also generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. The more money that goes into a game where you're trading a finite amount of something, the more each of those somethings will be able to sell for. And if people stopped investing new money into the market, it would absolutely collapse.### Assistant: > can do anything other than sell the stock later to another investor really is the exception and not the rule. The 2% (roughly) dividend index I quoted beats US treasure bonds and stuffing money under your mattress. 2% is a lot in this market, plus you have share buybacks as well, this [S&P report](http://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/buyback/buyback_4.2.13) claims that about 80% of the free cash flow was spent on share repurchases in 2012, buying 4.5% of shares outstanding. They don't include general data (or I can't read it), but investing on the 10 biggest companies would have given you a 13.1% yearly return just with dividends and share repurchases, I don't think you can claim this is a bad return. > but you have no idea if you're going to be able to get your original $100 back when you're done with it. You have no idea if you're going to be able to get your original $100 under any investment. Hyperinflation could happen, countries go bankrupt, politicians sometimes refuse to payback their bonds, sometimes companies are expropriated, etc. Risk is inherent in all investments, including the stock market. I'll admit the stock market is riskier than US treasury bonds, but is it riskier thank Greek bonds? Spanish bonds? Argentinian pesos? Owning a company in Venezuela and not voting for Chavez(Maduro)? Just because something is risky doesn't mean it can't have a price, the stock market isn't horribly risky compared to other alternatives, and even if it were saying something is extremely risky isn't the same as saying its a ponzi scheme. Investing on Facebook or Google when they started, or investing in Spanish or Greek bonds now is extremely risky, but they aren't ponzi schemes, the risk just lowers the price of their financial instruments (which causes many problems in Spain and Greece, but no ponzi scheme!). > If you take the words with negative connotations out of that definiton (e.g. fraudulent) Fraudulent isn't a word with negative connotations, its a legal term. To quote from the [criminal charges](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6Osnj.SoYdM) filed against Bernie madoff (who ran a ponzi scheme): > Count 1, Securities **Fraud**: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc. (BLMIS) was a broker-dealer with three types of business: market making; proprietary trading; and investment advisory services. Madoff Securities International Ltd. (MSIL) was a U.K. affiliate engaged in proprietary trading. From the 1980s through Dec. 11, 2008, Madoff ran a “massive Ponzi scheme” as he used **false pretenses** to solicit billions of dollars of funds. On Dec. 1, 2008, BLMIS issued statements to 4,800 account holders showing they had total balances of $64.8 billion. **The firm held “a small fraction” of that balance.** Madoff took money from individuals, charities, trusts, pension funds and hedge funds. He failed to invest funds as promised and converted them to his **own use**. He falsely **promised** to achieve high rates of return, including as much as 46 percent, with limited risk. He **falsely** represented his “split strike conversion” investment strategy, saying he put money in a basket of stocks that would mimic price movements of the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index, invest intermittently in government-issued securities, and buy and sell option contracts in stocks. Madoff created a “broad infrastructure” at BLMIS to give the impression he ran “a legitimate investment advisory business in which client funds were actively traded as he had promised.” He hired many back office employees who **weren’t qualified**. He directed workers to generate **false client account statements** and trade confirmations that reflected **fictitious** returns and purportedly showed the firm bought and sold securities. Madoff directed the transfer of $250 million from investment advisory clients’ funds to his market making and proprietary trading businesses. Those transfers, through his London business, gave the false appearance that he was conducting transactions in Europe on behalf of investors. Madoff repeatedly **lied** to the Securities and Exchange Commission in written submissions and sworn testimony. He caused the creation of **false** financial statements about the business. The point of a ponzi scheme is twofold: First you lie to get the money (the stock market in general doesn't lie), second you misuse clients fund (the stock market in general doesn't do this). That's why its called fraud. > It does promise high rates of return with little risk in the long run. No they don't, they go out of their way to tell you that this isn't true. Some quotes: From the [Nasdaq](http://www.nasdaq.com/dynamic/nasdaqbiotech_activity.stm): Past performance is no guarantee of future results. From [SheltonCap talking about the S&P 500 index:](http://sheltoncap.com/mutual-funds/domestic-equity/sandp-500-index-fund/): The performance data quoted represents past performance. Performance figures represent past performance and are not a guarantee of future results. The investment return and the principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost; current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. From [Vanguard](https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0968&FundIntExt=INT) talking about the S&P 500: The performance data shown represent past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results. Investment returns and principal value will fluctuate, so that investors' shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data cited. From [Berkshire Hathaway](http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/qtrly/1stqtr13.pdf): Investors are cautioned that certain statements contained in this document as well as some statements in periodic press releases and some oral statements of Berkshire officials during presentations about Berkshire or its subsidiaries are “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”). Forward-looking statements include statements which are predictive in nature, which depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, which include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” or similar expressions. In addition, any statements concerning future financial performance (including future revenues, earnings or growth rates), ongoing business strategies or prospects and possible future Berkshire actions, which may be provided by management, are also forward-looking statements as defined by the Act. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and projections about future events and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions about Berkshire and its subsidiaries, economic and market factors and the industries in which we do business, among other things. **These statements are not guaranties of future performance and we have no specific intention to update these statements.** This part is key, you can't sue the Nasdaq or the Vanguard Fund if stock prices tank because they *don't* guarantee you positive returns. They *expect* positive returns in the future, but they don't guarantee them and they are not legally liable for the future performance of the stock market. This means that the stock market can't implode like a Ponzi scheme. If the stock market tanks you are still going to have to pay Vanguard(or Nasdaq or whatever) their expense ratio, you are not guaranteed any returns and they are not legally liable for any losses you experience, and this isn't fraud (as in deception) as they are quite upfront with it. I'll admit people rarely listen to those warning, but they are there for a reason. > Nearly every financial analyst I've ever spoken with will argue that in the long run the market always goes up. But they will always tell you that they won't guarantee future returns, and that they are not legally liable for your losses. Which means this isn't a ponzi scheme as they won't defraud you, and if they don't guarantee your returns they won't get in trouble if no new investors come. > It also generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. They also generate returns from dividends and share buybacks. You might believe they aren't high enough, but the 2% dividend yield ratio is much greater than other investments, and the stock market isn't specially risky (unless you compare it to US treasure bonds). Generating returns for older investors by acquiring new investors isn't illegal per se, Facebook did it when it went public for instance. The older investors (those who invested when Facebook was starting) got their money by being able to sell when Facebook went public. The problem is when you *misuse* the funds acquired by new investors. A ponzi scheme uses the newly acquired funds to pay older investors under false pretenses, the older investors think their money is being used for investments. When you buy stocks from a company you know a past investor is getting the money, and there is no fraud in this as long as you are aware of what you are doing. > The more money that goes into a game where you're trading a **finite amount** of something, the more each of those somethings will be able to sell for. Not finite, the earnings and the assets of the companies are increasing. The p/e ratio is roughly stable in the long term, so you can accurately claim that the increase of money spent is proportional to the increase in quantities. > And if people stopped investing new money into the market, it would absolutely collapse. Still not a ponzi scheme. Private companies have a positive value even if their stocks aren't publicly traded, just because people don't buy stocks doesn't mean the company suddenly loses their fiduciary responsibilities and can stop giving money (even if very little) to its shareholders. In general, companies do share repurchases if people stop buying shares in their companies, Apple did it when Steve Jobs died (also because Jobs didn't like giving out money). Plus, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, if the stock market crashes tomorrow you can't sue them for fraud, embezzlement, false statements or anything. I would add a tiny conclusion: A ponzi scheme implies deception, fraud, un-sustainability and misuse of funds. The stock market isn't based on deception as they will tell you time and again that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. It's not unsustainable as the P/E ratio is relatively stable on the long run, meaning people invest more as the economy grows which is sustainable. Its not clear that rises in stock prices are even necessary in a stock market, [the Nikkei](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/stock-market) has been flat for two decades and people still invest in it. I see no reason to believe that, say, the US or EU stock markets couldn't survive being flat for a few decades, as no one guarantees you positive returns. The stock market doesn't, in general, misuse your funds. You know perfectly well that when you buy stock the money goes to the previous stock owner, in most ponzi schemes this isn't the case. A ponzi scheme without fraud, deception, sustainable in the long run, that doesn't require ever increasing amounts of money or misuses its client's funds is no ponzi scheme.### Human: Yeah Madoff was over the top. I wasn't really thinking of anything that malicious when I drew the comparison. He went above and beyond. He directly lied to the investors about how their investments were doing, and sought to more or less steal their money for his own use. I don't think that the market necessarily evil - I just think that it relies on the a continuous stream of new investors in order to work, and doesn't involve any real product (with the exceptions I posted originally). Not to be too cynical about the projections for investments that you mentioned, but I honestly believe that those are simply there for the same reason that they put warnings on Q-tips telling you not to put them in your ear. It's a disclaimer they have to make. I believe that the common notion that is perpetuated all over our society is that the stock market always goes up in the long run, or that long term investing is always going to pay off. It's not one group that does this, it comes from a lot of places. But it's an extremely pervasive and prevalent view in our society, especially among those with money. With respect to the finite amount that I mentioned; I was referring to the shares, not the amount of cash. If the number of shares stays the same and the amount of cash increases (as new investors join), the average price per share should increase. And re: facebook - that's an example of the market working more or less the way it was intended IMO. But I don't think IPOs are the issue here - I think 3rd party to 3rd party trading that accounts for the majority of activity. I agree with a lot of the things that you're saying, but i still have trouble differentiating the aggregate market as it's most commonly regarded and a generic ponzi scheme. I still see IPO activity and dividends as insignificant in the big picture here. What we have is a system that you can buy into and hopefully make more off of your money than a bank would pay. It continues to work as long as people continue to join.### Assistant: Just because society likes to think and talk about the stock market going up, does not mean that it will. Really the notion of the stock market going up over time is just the idea that everything is expected to grow. This is why it's such a shock when a crash happens. Nobody wants to think that their business or the economy isn't going to grow in the long run. Investing in the stock market is really just deciding that you want to be a part of that possible growth. It's not a finite amount. There are new shares created in IPOs and old shares are bought back by a company. Plus stocks can split, creating more. There is no finite amount of stock to invest in just like there is no finite amount of cash out there. You forget here that every time a new investor buys into the market an older investor is selling and getting out of the market. That is unless it's an IPO or share buyback. I think what you are trying to say here is that you feel that artificially high stock prices are not sustainable and growth cannot go on forever. And this is absolutely true. The market eventually corrects, unfortunately when it does, it drops pretty quickly and people lose money. I think you're also trying to say that it's not a good investment to invest in the stock market. This is an opinion because you, just like everyone else don't know what the future holds. The truth is that the stock market is risky and no one is hiding that from you. Sure, sales people like to gloss over it so that you invest with them, but that's another issue. It's really a matter of how much risk are you willing to take? If you diversify and invest in a market following fund, your returns are mostly based on the growth of the entire economy. If you don't diversify and only invest in specific companies, your returns are based on the growth of those companies.

### Human: CMV: Unless they had need of it, I don't feel sympathy for anyone who has gotten in trouble for marijuana use.### Assistant: Feel sympathy for yourself. Like a chump you are paying money to jail these people, prosecute these people. These people are often restricted from the kinds of jobs they have, and have reduced earning potential so pay less taxes (meaning your tax burden goes up accordingly). You should also feel scared. It is scary that you live in a country where the government can arbitrarily make something illegal without good justification. It is scary that you live in a country so stupid as to want to lock up a good portion of its population for doing something that is effectively harmless. And you know what, we should feel bad when people are caught up in stupid, counter productive rules. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Stupid laws hurt everyone and there are people who are being jailed for absolutely no good reason... except that they broke a law. I am sure there are a dozen laws a day you break and if suddenly speeding was punishable by death I would feel sorry for you.### Human: You keep saying the ban is stupid. I agree, but I don't think we're talking about whether the law is stupid, or whether we're all "chumps" for paying money to prosecute these criminals. We're talking about whether or not we should be sympathetic towards people who are punished for ignoring the law. >And you know what, we should feel bad when people are caught up in stupid, counter productive rules. These people did not get "caught up" in these rules. We're talking about people who said, "I know this is illegal, but I'm willing to take that risk in order to fulfill my desires". If you want to change the law, protest it, get people together and send a message to law makers that you don't want this ban anymore. Decriminalization is becoming common in many states and legalization has already happened in two states. >there are people who are being jailed for absolutely no good reason... except that they broke a law. I mean... that's like the foundation of jail. It's a place to keep law breakers. I'm just not sure what you're trying to say there. > I am sure there are a dozen laws a day you break and if suddenly speeding was punishable by death I would feel sorry for you. These things don't *suddenly* become illegal. Marijuana has been illegal for some time now and I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of people are aware of that. If the government said, "Hey guys, we're cracking down on speeding now, if you get stopped for it you're going to jail for a year" (let's just be a little less harsh than the death penalty for practicality's sake), I would not feel sorry at all for people who heard the message yet kept speeding. I would certainly oppose the law and probably protest it, but I wouldn't just ignore the law and get upset when it was time to face punishment.### Assistant: >I mean... that's like the foundation of jail. It's a place to keep law breakers. I'm just not sure what you're trying to say there. I guess that's more of a matter of opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Prison should be a place to keep people who are a danger to society. Not anyone who breaks some arbitrary law that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever.### Human: >arbitrary law that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever. That's your opinion. Most people don't see it as an arbitrary law. The law says that if you do this, you go to jail. So as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the things jail is for.### Assistant: > that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever. That's not an opinion. If, hypothetically, I sit on my couch and smoke a bowl and watch South Park, that's not affecting anyone else whatsoever. Yea it is currently illegal, that's fine. We all know that, whether we agree or not. Yea I am knowingly and willingly breaking the law so being fined or something for it would be acceptable. But what good does it to for the rest of society to throw that person in prison? They could still be a perfectly productive member of society, but instead you'd rather have them sit in a cell doing nothing and pay to house and clothe and feed them for x amount of time? Prison should be there to keep violent offenders from being able to hurt anyone else, or repetitive robbers or people like that who are actively harming those around them. It shouldn't be for drug users or prostitutes or people who have committed victimless crimes unless they also fit into one of the above categories. Not wearing a seatbelt is also against the law where I'm from, and you can get fined for it. Would you also throw that person in jail because "well, you knew it was illegal before you did it"?### Human: until Marijuana is legalized and the production and distribution is regulated, you are affecting other people. your money is likely contributing to a criminal enterprise. you may also be increasing your risk for mental health or medical issues (this is more of a stretch, but still possible) which we as a society will end up paying for through increased insurance premiums or state funded care.### Assistant: >your money is likely contributing to a criminal enterprise. It's only a criminal enterprise because government has seen fit to make it criminal. You're using circular logic. >which we as a society will end up paying for through increased insurance premiums or state funded care. We're already paying to enforce the law and jail offenders.### Human: speaking of flawed logic... just because issues could be resolved by legalizing marijuana it is therefore okay to be potentially contributing money to gangs/cartels/other illegal organizations? I don't think there is a single person in this thread who is opposed to marijuana legalization. but it currently isnt, so we have to deal with how things are not how they should be.### Assistant: >just because issues could be resolved by legalizing marijuana it is therefore okay to be potentially contributing money to gangs/cartels/other illegal organizations? Gangs and cartels benefit from prohibition. The DEA may as well be the cartel's personal enforcement agency because it stomps out any competition. Without prohibition, participants of the drug market are no different than participants of any other market. What happened after alcohol prohibition ended? Did gangs suddenly dominate the market? No, gangsters either moved to other criminal activity (because there's no use for a gangster outside the black market), or became honest businessmen in a trade that was no longer criminal.### Human: I get that man... I mean, did you read what I wrote? I understand perfectly well legalization would reduce this kind of activity. but it's not legal is it? not in most states anyways. so for the time being, unless you buy from someone who grows it themselves or you grow your own, your money goes straight to gangs or cartels who control the bulk of the supply. so within the current system, the only way to stop these people from getting YOUR money, is to not buy from them. that's all I was saying. and my point was those people who break the law are also contributing to violence and criminal activity. so CURRENTLY, it is impacting more people than just themselves. but people don't give a shit about the morality of it, and just want to parrot what they hear "it's only affecting me, it's a personal choice". well, that's bullshit, and until it's legal it will continue being bullshit.### Assistant: >so for the time being, unless you buy from someone who grows it themselves or you grow your own, your money goes straight to gangs or cartels who control the bulk of the supply. The law isn't "anyone who deals with cartels goes to jail," it's "anyone who deals in drugs goes to jail." A person who deals and sells locally is subject to the exact same penalties as dealers with cartel connections. You can't assume that anyone in the drug market is benefitting cartels. >and my point was those people who break the law are also contributing to violence and criminal activity. It sounds like you have a grater revulsion for violence when it's committed by cartels than you do for violence carried out by our government against its citizens. Why? Wouldn't you agree that jailing a person is a greater measure of violence than drug trade?### Human: jailing someone for breaking the law is different than the deaths caused by the drug trade. both need to be addressed. but they are complex issues which will likely require more than just the legalization of Marijuana to stop.### Assistant: >jailing someone for breaking the law is different than the deaths caused by the drug trade. both need to be addressed. but they are complex issues which will likely require more than just the legalization of Marijuana to stop. Outlawing drugs hasn't done anything at all to stop deaths caused by drug trade and in fact has exacerbated the problem. I thought from your earlier comment that you understood this. The way you put it, it sounds like you're complicit in jailing lawbreakers simply because they broke the law without any consideration for what harm has actually been done. Which brings me back to the original question: are marijuana users worthy of sympathy when they are caught and jailed? I've established that users and dealers are not necessarily connected to cartels. Who is being harmed in this situation? Why not have sympathy for people in this unfortunate situation?### Human: I agree and understand the ban on recreational drugs fuel the cartels and is causing more harm than good. however, although ALL drug users are not directly benefiting cartels and gangs... some are simply because if there was no demand, there would be no drug trade. you can blame the government but ultimately the money comes from the users. sort of a no snowflake thinks they caused the avalanche type situation. for me personally, it all falls back to the simple fact that it's avoidable. noone has to smoke weed, it's a risk the user takes. whether the law is just or unjust to me doesn't play into it. if you want to change the law, write your congressmen, have a rally, start a awareness movement. you don't have to break the law to enact change.### Assistant: >for me personally, it all falls back to the simple fact that it's avoidable. noone has to smoke weed, it's a risk the user takes. whether the law is just or unjust to me doesn't play into it. That's fair. I see your stance (and OP's) as valid since nobody is entitled to your sympathy. However, I also suspect you don't apply this logic to every situation. Surly there are situations where the victim shares responsibility for his circumstances that you would feel sympathetic. If a guy fires a firework off his head and dies, I would agree that such a consequence is natural, but I would still be sympathetic since that was clearly not the intent the stunt. We can say "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all day, and yes - people are ultimately responsible for their actions, but in my humble opinion that's not the bar for sympathy.

### Human: CMV: The US government subsidizes obesity and global warming with food policy.### Assistant: Your argument seems to be based on the premise that eating meat is the primary cause of obesity. Meat is actually has a far better protein/calorie ratio than vegetarian options do. Making meat more expensive would actually cause more obesity, not less. Any effort to reduce obesity should focus on making sugar more expensive, not meat. Additionally: Vegetarian diets are not necessarily better for the environment. About 90% of US cropland suffers from top soil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate. 92% of US soybeans (a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides. This immunity allows soy farmers to douse their fields with large quantities of weed-killing herbicides which are toxic to other plants and fish. Some scientists worry that increased herbicide use could create "super weeds." Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. The production of soy-based proteins such as tofu could contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than eating **locally produced** meat. According to a peer-reviewed 2009 study, giving up all animal products would only give a 8% reduction in green house gas emissions, not enough to be worth the dietary sacrifice. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228790125_Dietary_choices_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_-_Assessment_of_impact_of_vegetarian_and_organic_options_at_national_scale### Human: Over 80% of soy is used to feed animals. The worst possible tofu-production could cause more pollution than the best possible meat production. But the average vegetarian/vegan diet is definetely far better for the environment than the average omnidiet. this study ->http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf says that stock farming causes 51% of green house gas emissions wordlwide.### Assistant: Currently it causes 51% sure, but if literally every single person on earth stopped eating meat it would only be a net change of -8% to green house gas emissions. Everyone eating responsibly and not over-eating anything, regardless of their diet, would probably have a far greater positive impact on the environment than everyone going vegetarian would.### Human: "Eating responsibly" is a bit vague. i am not really in favor of vegetarism either because dairy-industry also contributes to these 51%. A vegan diet is the best possible option for the environment and healthier than the average omni-diet.### Assistant: By eating responsibly I just mean not consuming more calories than are required in any given day. Everyone doing this, hell even just America doing this, would drastically reduce corn and also general production. If we are talking about the best possible option, then wouldn't that be fruitarianism and not a vegan diet?### Human: i dont think that the difference between fruitarianism and veganism is that great, but you're probably right about that.

### Human: CMV: Donald Trump is grossly unqualified to become president. If elected, he will destroy the efforts of important social movements (such as race/gender equality), important environmental movements, and any progress toward improving economical class differences.### Assistant: If elected, Trump will focus on foreign affairs and border controls, along with macroeconomics. The political trade offs that any politician has to make means compromise on even stated goals regarding social and equality issues. His main goals are economic, as far as I can tell. * #1 issue for Trump: borders. * #2 issue: trade, specifically trade deals * #3 issue: spending A Republican or Democratic congress doesn't just do what the President wants. Democrats will block every attempt to undo social equality laws in any way shape or form. They will also fight against the Trump agenda (whatever that is) in every other venue. But they'll die on a hill over racial and gender equality. Foreign affairs? Non citizens can't vote. Republicans risk losing generations of voters if they antagonize women and minorities significantly, so they won't sign off on the things you are most worried about. The political dynamics are such that it would be politically impossible for Trump to undermine widely supported social movements, especially when he wants to use his power satisfying his core campaign promises in purely foreign/economic venues. [Edit: crap mobile formatting]### Human: So your whole argument is based on letting a wolf into your house around your kids because he'll be tied down?### Assistant: (I messed up and posted this as a reply to the original not here, oops - on mobile) I obviously OBVIOUSLY don't support Trump. Look at my post history. I think his economic policies would be disastrous. I think he (at least) wouldn't be opposed to reduced social power for women and minorities, blah blah blah... OP asked for someone to change your view on two claims: (1) that Trump would be a bad president and (2) that Trump would ACTUALLY undermine equality programs. I went after the view that I think OP is actually open to changing his/her view on, that Trump being elected would actually have effects. (Edited since I confused commenter with OP)### Human: Oh, I'm not OP, I was just confused as to how somebody could support him purely based on that.### Assistant: My bad, edited. Am I right?

### Human: CMV: The US spends too much on the military and that money would be better spent elsewhere.### Assistant: So there is a Ton of misunderstanding about what exactly the defense budget does, because actually a large portion of it actually does go towards infrastructure (it's simply not the infrastructure a lot of people think about on a day to day basis). First off the $597 B isn't the current number, the current number is around $524 B. The 597 was the 2015 number. Which may sound nitpicky but it is actually a bit of a drop considering we are involved in less engagements at the moment. Next it may be actually useful to look at the millitary spending vs GDP to actually understand what the US is actually spending. We are actually 12th in the world if you go by that metric. Now to look at how the money is spent. A large amount of it (in fact the largest chunk) goes into paying personnel, not just soldiers, but the contractors, builders janitors etc. Another large chunk goes into the corp of engineers building and maintenance of riverways. If you want to look at the most expensive thing ever built it's the dams and levies on the Mississippi, and that is funded across three large areas of spending (maintenance, construction, and research). On top of that the Corp of engineers is actually in charge of every major riverway and port; 609 dams, maintenance and/or operation of 257 navigation locks, and operation of 75 hydroelectric facilities generating 24% of the nation's hydropower and three percent of its total electricity; on top of this construction and maintenance on every base. So do realize not all the money is simply going into guns bombs and planes.### Human: Civil infrastructure is under the military budget?### Assistant: Some of it is, in fact a few huge civil works projects are. As I said the biggest are the dams and levies on the Mississippi. But other ones seen as key to national security and commerce are as well including 12,000 miles of waterway channels, and the maintenance of all the deepwater ports. But not all civil infrastructure is involved with the corp. Their [website](http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/) has a pretty good set of fact sheets to see what all they are involved in in different areas.### Human: I had no idea! Thanks. I suppose the ARMY in Army Corps of Engineers should have given it away. Any idea how much of the military budget goes to them?### Assistant: 1% of the total military budget. That may sound small but per capita that is the highest of any part of the armed forces (they are incredibly small and most money goes into paying employees). They also draw on other civilian funding sources to help fund them. The corp is kinda weird funding wise so it's kinda hard to find out exactly what they have at their disposal.

### Human: CMV: No human being should bow to someone just because they were born into some privileged family (royalty, nobility...), bowing as a sign of respect should only be done when it is mutual.### Assistant: In east asia, bowing is a sign of gratitude or respect. Bowing itself has little to do with subservience, but the further one bows signifies a greater amount of respect. While I would agree that no human being should do the full 90 degree horizontal bow to another as reflection of the recipient's status. A bow up to 60 or so degrees is completely reasonable as a gesture in the appropriate cultural context. To not do so would be impolite. Its really no different than offering a gift to the host of a dinner party; a simple, polite gesture.### Human: You are correct, I did know that. I don't object to those people bowing, as it is simply their culture. However, when two cultures meet, one should probably resort to neutral gestures which cannot be misinterpreted. I do object however to notions that some people deserve greater respect and thus deeper bowing just because they were born into some family. You changed my view a little bit, so congratulations. I now agree that people should be able to bow if it is a part of their culture. But it should be expect from those we are not part of their culture. ∆### Assistant: Would you not agree though that Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor is a sign of his respect of their traditional values? I'd imagine that's 99% the reason he did it, to show the entire country, not just one man, that he respected them.### Human: The only issue I have with this rhetoric is that the Japanese emperor (and his son) were forced into imprisonment following WWII. At this point he has less to do with the government bodies there than the Queen of England. While Shinzo Abe may have deserved a hat tip, the imprisoned symbol of Japanese fascism does not.### Assistant: > the Japanese emperor (and his son) were forced into imprisonment following WWII. I'm pretty sure Hirohito was not "imprisoned" following WWII.### Human: lol yeah you are totally right. I was missremembering what the japanese tour guide said years back. To corect myself, hes probably just as active as the queen...so its kind of like if the queen caused the rape of all the women and children of a whole city, used chemical weapons, and then remained a celebrated political figure piece.....

### Human: CMV: High frequency trading does nothing for society and merely destabilizes the stock market### Assistant: One role that HFT fulfills is to increase the number of participants in a market, allowing an investor to buy or sell with very little "spread" between bid and offer. Having a small spread is generally considered a good thing, and we are now at a point where most symbols trade with as little as a penny of spread between bid and offer. It can also be argued that HFTs help markets stay in sync by rapidly moving pricing information between markets in different physical locations. Since symbols can often be traded on multiple exchanges and the movement of one symbol often affects others, a firm with the fastest networks and best algorithms can make money by being the first to put out the best (most accurate) quote on one exchange based on information from another. Often HFTs are on the "sell side" of the trade, so it's important for them to be quoting at the price that most accurately reflects the underlying value of a stock at any given moment. Some argue that this is unfair but I don't really share this view since there will always be somebody, somewhere with this information before you (unless of course, you are trading on illegal insider information.) The best a long term investor can really hope for is an accurate price and small spread when they place their order to buy or sell. It's okay to let the HFTs squabble with each other over pennies because it's not going to realistically affect you in the long run and you're getting the best value when the trade executes due to the small spread. I'd also like to take a moment to address the criticism that HFTs unfairly get in the middle of trades and jack prices up before they go through. This is disingenuous at best. It doesn't affect the small investor in the slightest since their orders are so small, they are essentially background noise on the exchange. They will immediately execute and HFTs have no way of using that information to their advantage. A big institutional investor on the other hand, has more to worry about. Let's say they want to buy 1000 shares of a particular stock. Exchange A has 300 listed, B 200 and C 500. They buy out all the shares at exchange C, no problem. Then the remaining 500 shares try to execute at exchange A, then B. The very first HFT algorithms could see this pattern and raise prices on the latter two exchanges in response to the sudden increased demand. This is the order sniping that Michael Lewis refers to in Flash Boys. As you could imagine though, brokerage firms quickly realized what was happening and started using their own algorithms to thwart this by placing small orders on many exchanges over a longer period of time in order to hide their intentions. In 2014, any institutional investment firm blindly placing large orders on a market is just asking for it. Everyone uses "smart" order routing algorithms these days.### Human: > Having a small spread is generally considered a good thing, and we are now at a point where most symbols trade with as little as a penny of spread between bid and offer. Why is this? It seems to me that larger spreads are directly monetizable, because that's what HFT does. Why would people be glad that there's less money for them to potentially make on the market?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: > Because most people just want to buy or sell a stock for the current price. Even if they're buying for more and selling for less as a result of the spread being closed? I mean maybe if the lack of spread didn't represent money that people were losing, I could believe it, but it's like everyone having to pay a surcharge to trade that nobody ever consented to, due to market manipulation.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: How exactly does HFT'ers making money off of this *close* the spread, then?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Ah, so the people they're taking money from are *the people who place buy and sell orders that dictate the spread*, not the ones who fulfill them, by forcing the people placing the buy and sell orders to undercut their risk-free market making.

### Human: CMV: Ghosts don't exist### Assistant: Let's start with your basic premise. "Science has proven that...". Science doesn't work that way. Science is ever changing and is not immutable. Science is a great way to explain things, but can be changed based on data as it is discovered. A "soul", for lack of a better term, is not something that science can either prove or disprove at this time. We do not have the technology or understanding to do so. Now onto your multi conversationalist ghosts. What makes you presume that they are trying to communicate with us? Could it not simply be that they exist like any other animal? The gorillas which were no more than folk tale until a century ago were much the same. People would bring photographs back and it was explained away. They couldn't exist, people would argue. Scientists would agree. Then they were discovered and their habitat founded. To state with absolute certainty that ghost don't exist, is anti-science. A better way to say is that you do not believe ghosts exist based on what little data we have. Take some other scientific truths and replace ghost for them. Aliens exist. We know this because science has concluded that they should based on the near infinite amount of universe that exists. Does this mean we can definitively state that Aliens exist? No, we have no evidence to show that they do. Nor do we have any that they don't. What about Bigfoot? Could a small tribe of human sized apes live on Earth without having been detected like the gorillas previously mentioned? A small tribe of 20-50 that have near human intelligence and avoid contact with humans? We have no evidence that disproves their existence but none that proves it either. The short answer here is that, if you believe in science, you should neither believe that ghosts exist nor believe they don't exist. You should believe that there is enough scientific evidence that they don't exist but remain open to the possibility of their existence if proven otherwise.### Human: Then every truth can be challenged, dismissed, modified or extended based on new data. Which is correct! I, however, feel your answer (which is great, don't get me wrong) is too general and don't address the 'ghost' issue specifically. With the same logic we could challenge everything I think.### Assistant: > I, however, feel your answer (which is great, don't get me wrong) is too general and don't address the 'ghost' issue specifically. The OP stated specifically that science is their determining factor. As such, the response needs to be in what and why science is a poor factor for addressing this issue first before a focal discussion on ghosts in general can happen. Much like I can go to a Christian and tell them that God doesn't exist, they will throw a Bible at me and tell me that is the source of their belief. If I throw extrabiblical sources at them, they default back to their biblical belief and dismiss all other sources. This case, the bible is science and is replaced as such. Science needs to be a separate discussion, and then we can move onto the non-scientific evidence (because ghosts are a non-scientific phenomenon). I also briefly did touch on another base belief, that ghosts want to communicate with us. This is presuming intelligence upon them which we have no evidence of. They are likely more animal than anything vaguely human.### Human: I believe ghosts would be a scientific phenomenon, if they existed. The topic of God is theological/philosophical in nature. God can be roughly defined as he who created the world, or even the world itself, in which case the question of the nature of God becomes irrelevant. The question of the existence of God touches upon the very nature of truth, and logic. The question of the existence of ghosts, I deem to touch upon much more restrictive areas of intellectual interest, in particular the scientific method.### Assistant: Analyzing the existence of god and the existence of ghosts under the scientific method is the exact same thing, they are both claims that have no corroborating evidence. What makes you think the existence of god would "touch upon the very nature of truth" whereas the existence of ghosts would not?### Human: You can't devise a repeatable, falsifiable test for the existence of God, with the way we understand that question. You can't apply the scientific method towards it, unless the claim of God is to claim that God has physical properties. It is feasible that we can devise tests for the existence of ghosts using all these associated beliefs about them (electro-magnetic energy, certain houses etc etc), making them separate issues.

### Human: CMV: Suicide is a good choice for people that don't like life### Assistant: >some people that kill or try to kill themselves do not have a mental illness. Source?### Human: Only himself. And OP definately has some type of depression.### Assistant: What about someone with terminal illness that wants to die on their own terms? There's people who have rationale reasons for killing themselves### Human: That is an entirely different example. And as a colorado resident I'm very happy to be able to give those people with a terminal illness the ability to make that choice on their own terms instead of bankrupting their family to eek out a couple more months of life. That is completely and utterly different than what you have been previously stating.### Assistant: It's an example of someone that is not mentally ill choosing to die for other reasons, which is what I asked for. From there we can extrapolate that there are other kinds of examples in which a non mentally ill person wants to commit suicide### Human: How can we extrapolate from the existence of an edge case that other (non-edge) cases must exist? Seems like that's not good logical thinking.

### Human: CMV: The question shouldn't be "What gives your life purpose" but "Why should your life have a purpose to begin with?"### Assistant: The cool thing about purpose is not that you get born with a purpose, or that you get handed a purpose that is especially meaningful, but that you get to define whatever purpose you want for yourself. Just because the range of choices is not absolute and the purpose is not itself immortal or even especially meaningful in the grand scheme of things, and may not even be successful, does not remove your choice to choose a purpose. So you ask why life should have a purpose, rather than asking what purpose it has. Your right, life has no default purpose in such a sense. But I would ask you, if it is within your power to choose a purpose, whatever purpose that may be, why would you not choose? Is the choice to deny yourself a purpose more satisfying? I don't think so. Else the nihilism engendered by the insignificance wouldn't lead you to ask such a question. Is it so hard to look nihilism with a smile, and choose that insignificant thing called purpose even if it grows and dies just like everything else?### Human: What you say sounds excellent for upper level manager. However, you miss the nuance that op is getting at. OP is a psychopath (not necessarily a bad thing without knowing more). How do you prescribe one to live a life that he/she didn't sign up for? You can't, which is your basis. But what now? I say live hedonistically. Whatever provides a balance between long-run maximal utility and short-term utility. If that is goal achievement or guilty pleasure, you decide.### Assistant: OP is not a physchopath. OP is a nihilist. And yes physchopath has very very negative connotations. I'm not sure if you're trolling or not here.### Human: Maybe sociopath is a better description. Either way, he's looking for a recipe for "the good life"### Assistant: What evidence do you have that he is a "sociopath"? Looking for "the good life" is an ancient tradition in philosophy and does not exclude empathy. In fact, many would include it.

### Human: CMV: The No-Fly no-buy provision currently being pushed by Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, and several in the Senate, to restrict guns from those on the No-Fly list would not stand up to a Constitutional challenge if enacted### Assistant: If it continued to provide no due process, then I think your argument would be pretty good. But there's nothing intrinsic to the no-fly list that says that it must be a no-due-process thing. It would be trivial to add a provision to appeal your presence on the list that would survive court scrutiny. So... maybe as things stand today, but that doesn't mean the proposal as a general concept couldn't be constitutional.### Human: Right. I agree with the idea that *something* similar could accomplish the same goals that could withstand a suit. However, no-fly, no buy isn't it### Assistant: The exact same list, with added due process rights, could be used, however. It's not the list that's problematic, or even the concept... constitutionally speaking. But in terms of "standing up to a Constitutional challenge", that depends entirely on what was done during such a Constitutional challenge. Such a challenge is not some kind of static thing where a situation is judged in isolation from other things. If the court said "yes, you can do that, but only if inclusion on the list is appealable with due process" would that be it "surviving a Constitutional challenge"? Or if they could prove that, indeed, appeals do (at the time of the challenge) follow due process, and it is thereby allowed, would that be "surviving" the challenge?### Human: This isn't a bad point. But what's stopping legislators from just making those changes beforehand?### Assistant: And they could do that, as part of the "proposal"... The President, in particular, doesn't have any power to enact laws... Unless there's more than soundbites to go on... I haven't even seen the text of any specific bill that has been proposed, if any... if there's no bill proposed, it would be premature to conclude anything about its constitutionality.### Human: The president has the authority to issue executive orders -- which may be knocked down if deemed unsupported by legislation (or the powers given to a president by the Constitution).### Assistant: Fine... I haven't seen the text for either a specific bill, or the text of a proposed executive order. Though, really... if Obama were planning on an executive order, he probably would just issue it, rather than "proposing" one... he can just do that as President... The fact that he's talking about it makes it pretty likely that he's trying to influence Congress... or the public, rather than issuing any orders.### Human: Yes, that's a good point. There's a very small he might want to built support for it ahead of an executive order so it doesn't appear to be an overreach

### Human: CMV: US Soldiers are deceived by a mis-guided sense of honor and pride in what they do.### Assistant: Looks like most of the posters agree with you in general. I don't. You seem to believe that the leaders of all of the other countries are good people, but that mean US keeps picking on them. Do you really think that if there weren't a threat of military retaliation that North Korea wouldn't invade the South? That the entire Arab world wouldn't try to wipe out Israel as they did several times in the past? ~~That Russia wouldn't take the Crimea.~~ Oh, wait, there wasn't a credible military threat to prevent that, never mind. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, you do know that thousands died in 9/11, and that that effort was supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan, right? Do you think that if there wasn't retaliation they would have just patted each other on the back, say, "Well, we really showed them. Let's turn our attention to agriculture"? Now, you can argue as to how the historical actions of the US have gotten us into this situation, but that's beside the point. There are, today, many people who wish America harm, and the military keep many of those people at bay. If not getting blown up is not in the interests of the American people, I don't know what is. Afghanistan was not about "political gain" - it was about destroying a threat. There are no resources there. You also somehow separate the "interests of the politicians" from those of the people. Who is it that elects these people? They may not be your personal interests, but they are the ones supported by the majority of voters. Finally, I've never heard a solider "ask for" respect. Even when they know that they have been separated from their family, seen their buddies killed and maimed, and risked the same for naive idealists who think that if we put down our weapons those who hate us will do the same, they don't ask for it. But many of them have earned it.### Human: > Afghanistan was not about "political gain" - it was about destroying a threat. There are no resources there. That's just not true. In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan### Assistant: What does that have to do with providing a base for Bin Laden, which was a greater threat to the US than opium?### Human: You made a claim that there was no resources there.### Assistant: The OP was talking about the resources that the US was interested in gaining, presumably a reference to the oil in Iraq. I was pointing out that that logic didn't hold in Afghanistan### Human: [uh](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)### Assistant: From your own post >The previously unknown deposits... Wow, the US was even more devious then we thought. Did they know that they were going to find unknown resources 9 years after the invasion, or did they even more nefariously plant that $1trillion worth of resources there to justify the war?### Human: If you think that such a substantial mineral deposit (especially in the middle east) was unknown to resource development companies, you are very naive. Do you think that oil companies knew about reserves under the arctic circle before they stumbled upon such a wealth of precious metals in an area known for resource extraction?### Assistant: Yes, I'm so naive that I don't believe in vast conspiracies without, oh, I dunno, some sort of proof of some kind, rather than after-the-fact speculation.### Human: This isn't a vast conspiracy. All I'm saying is that the resource development interests in the United States (many of whom make generous political contributions) knew about the resource deposits under Afghanistan before the invasion. It's well known that the Soviets mapped the reserves under Afghanistan. It's not like Afghanistan was just a pile of goat turds until the US invaded. If you're interested in a brief history of natural resource development in Afghanistan, [here](http://www.uvm.edu/ieds/sites/default/files/IEDSAfghanistan2011.pdf) is a short report on the subject (p.4-6 for a historical synopsis). After invasion, the USGS "found" these reserves mainly by looking at old soviet records. If the soviets knew about the reserves, I would bet that international resource development companies knew about the reserves.### Assistant: The Taliban had no objection to its resources being extracted. This is one of the worst conspiracy theories that I have ever heard.### Human: I have a hard time believing that the Taliban did not have a problem with Western countries devolping their resources but also conducted the 9/11 attacks.### Assistant: A) Western countries are not developing their resources. China is. You can bet that the Taliban would not pass up on billions of dollars to get their resources developed. B) The Taliban didn't conduct the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda did. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda seek refuge in Afghanistan in the 90's because the Taliban needed military support it their civil war against the United Front and Al Qaeda needed a place to go after they were kicked out of Sudan. They traded services for a place to stay.

### Human: I'm pretty sure that almost nobody ACTUALLY believes in hell. CMV### Assistant: If you are talking about the Christian version of hell, then Christians don't believe that you can avoid hell simply by doing charitable deeds ... most of them don't believe that people are judged and segregated according to their good or bad deeds, they believe that we are *all* sinners and that we *all* deserve to go to hell, and the only way to avoid it is to repent and ask God to forgive us and save us, and yes, also to pledge to follow God's will, but acknowledging that we will keep failing.### Human: As a christian I believe in the existance of hell. Not the hell people think I believe in though. Hell just means that you are seperated from the chance of finding the true meaning to your life and/or ultimate truth. And that burns. I just wanted to emphasize that not all (I even think most don't) christans believe in hell in the sense that you will be stabbed by devils while on fire for eternity. But yes, I do believe hell exists.### Assistant: As a digression from the main topic, I'm curious about your belief ... do you mean that if we are sent to the hell of separation, that we suffer for all eternity without any further chance of redemption, or that we simply die with no further afterlife consciousness ... or something else?### Human: No longer a Christian, but pretty well versed and nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that anyone will be tortured for eternity. One could interpret "Eternal Punishment" as annihilation, since you cease to exist for eternity, while others live forever.### Assistant: Everyone whose name is not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. Also cast into the lake of fire are the devil, and the beast, who are to be tortured there for all eternity. While it's not outright said that everyone cast into the lake of fire will be tortured forever, it is very easy to make the connection between the lake of fire and eternal suffering.### Human: It's also very easy NOT to make that connection. If I threw you into a volcano, you wouldn't suffer for very long.### Assistant: So if I'm evil and die, I wake up somewhere, get thrown into some lava, melt almost instantly, and then I'm gone forever? That's kind of an interesting interpretation. Heaven is Heaven and Hell is just death/nonexistence (with an extremely short time of pain)?### Human: That's one interpretation of Hell - annhilationism. The other major doctrines are eternal conscious torment and universalism.

### Human: I feel like the prejudice against cochlear implants in the deaf community is completely unfounded. CMV### Assistant: The Deaf community doesn't see themselves at all the same way you do. They don't treat deafness as some objective imperfection that makes them a little more defective than anyone else. They consider deafness not to be an error but a culture. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start: [Deaf culture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture) Once you read that, you start to understand what cochlear implants represent to the Deaf community. They're a way of robbing someone of their culture for the sake of fixing something that's not even considered a problem in the first place.### Human: I read the article, but why don't they consider it a problem? Not having one of the human senses has a significant impact. •They are unable to hear audible alarms and will not notice an alarm unless there are other people around or other alarm types, like flashing ones. •They are unable to enjoy music •They will have at least some difficulty communicating with the rest of society which can be a problem for many areas of employment and social life •They are more likely to struggle academically due to communication difficulties I don't see how they can think of missing an entire sense as something to be proud of. I can see how the would be proud of the culture, but it's not like the instant a deaf person gets a cochlear implant, or a child gets one, that they will never learn sign language or interact with deaf people ever again. It seems childish to ostracise someone for wanting to have more opportunity and perception, or to want their child to have more opportunities and less difficulty in life.### Assistant: What is a cochlear implant? It's a surgical procedure which will take a child out of one cultural group (deaf) and place them in another (non-deaf). Compare that with similar surgical procedures you could imagine: - lightening the skin of a black child to make them appear white - performing a sex change operation on an infant with ambiguous genitals (e.g. changing a boy with a micropenis into a girl) - performing brain surgery on homosexual teenager to make them heterosexual (if such a thing were possible!) Now, you could argue that all of these things would make people's lives "easier". It's easier to be the same as the majority (white, "normal appearing" genitals, straight). But we'd find all these things morally and ethically reprehensible - in some cases, even if the person was of age and consenting (think Michael Jackson). Does a black person have the right to make themselves white surgically? Sure. Should they do so? Most people would say no, and I think most people can see why if it became a trend, it would harm the black community as a whole. It would treat dark skin as a problem to be fixed, thereby further stigmatizing those who choose not to make the change. Should parents make that choice for their children, or encourage their children to make that choice, or allow them to make that choice before they're 18? I think most people would say emphatically no - even though we know that being black in the US carries significant social stigma and decreases opportunities for financial and professional success. Deafness is perceived as a disability by the non-deaf community, because we can't imagine living without hearing. However, by the deaf community, it's perceived as a culture. Deaf people often live in communities together; they have a shared language; they have a sense of solidarity that comes from being part of a shared culture. Deafness makes certain things harder, as does having dark skin or being gay. BUT it also entitles you to a place in a community of people, and there are social and emotional benefits that go along with that. Deaf people can't hear, but does that mean that a deaf child will necessarily be less happy overall with life than a hearing child? I wouldn't say so. That's why it's not a problem that necessarily needs to be fixed.### Human: We do surgery on children with ambiguous genitalia, and it isn't considered morally or ethically reprehensible### Assistant: My understanding - which could be wrong - is that gender reassignment at birth is no longer done. Maybe it's just more controversial than it once was. I think we now know that changing a biological male into a female because his penis doesn't fit social norms comes with a whole host of other problems that at least need to be considered.

### Human: I believe news organizations that knowingly lie should not be allowed to label themselves "News". CMV.### Assistant: I don't disagree with you in theory, however I am not particularly comfortable with giving the power to any particular group of people to decide what is and what isn't news. I'm sure the lines are quite blurry when you really dig deep, if they miss one correction do they get their title stripped? What if you have a talk show on a news network, do they have the same standard? I can't speak for other countries, but I would not be comfortable with this system in the US because of the political climate. With a two party system where power shifts back and forth, I think giving anyone the ability to decide what can and can't call itself news creates a potentially bad situation. You've asked for us to prove what harm this could bring to the American people, I'd like to ask you what good it can bring. People tend to get their news from whatever they want, plenty of people rely on entertainment programs about the news (Daily show) or talk shows about the news (Rush limbaugh's show). If people care about the integrity of their news, why can't the public be trusted to self select what they should and shouldn't consume?### Human: If you read the full post it should be obvious: Per #4, A talk show on a news network has to be labeled as not news, and clearly wouldn't be subject to the must-not-lie rules, it just can't call itself a news program and air lies. And per #3 they can't air more than 50% non-news shows during primetime/earlytime or they can't call themselves a news organization. My point is, "news" has an inherent meaning in our society, it simply does, and calling yourself a news organization implies that what you say is true. You shouldn't be able to perpetuate FALSE information with impunity, and still call yourself a news organization. The good that it would do is to limit the false information, like saying that, for instance, the Affordable Care Act will create death panels, which is objectively false, or the like. Purposely misleading the public under the guise of being "news" should be illegal. It's not "giving anyone the power to decide what can and can't call itself news" -- it's simply targetted at objectively false information being purported as truth. Put simply, why is it ok that a trusted source of information lies?### Assistant: Who is to say these "News Organizations" wouldn't just adhere to the word of the rules and still perpetuate the lies as efficiently? Just with less ratings? They could have interviews instead of talk shows. I just don't see your methods achieving the real goals..I have a feeling legitimate news organizations would get screwed more and worse than (c'mon, we all know who you're talking about) Fox.### Human: The interesting thing: We actually have these laws in place up in Canada. Fox News is not allowed to air on any station in Canada, period, because they failed the "News can't lie on air" test. News organizations still run perfectly fine up here. Hell, it's better off, because I don't need to take all news with a handful of salt, just a grain of it.### Assistant: How did they judge that? How did they prove that? What precedent lets them stop Fox but not stop people who are telling inconvenient truths?### Human: Fox news won a court case a couple years ago. "During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. " http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/31/364678/-Fox-News-wins-in-court### Assistant: Oh I am aware of that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking how Canada judged *that* Fox is lying. Or is that the answer? The Canadian government took that as an open admission of dishonesty?### Human: As a Canadian, I don't know how. I cannot answer and find it odd Fox news failed this "test" when the CBC, funded by Government, is bull shit, just the same. It's Liberal bias news (Conservative's threatened to defund them all the time). For instance, it'll post articles about animals shrinking in warm climates and will write the headline as such but will then indicate the study hasn't even begun (they push climate change) while including others who say it's bullshit at the bottom of the article. Another one is their hatred for anything "Right wing." The mayor of Toronto is not a Liberal and there was rumor he smoked crack. The CBC ran the story and kept going after it until it was revealed that the only truth behind it was some asshole who said "I have evidence of a video" and that, apparently, was enough to run the story. The video was never revealed. So, I do agree with you that it's difficult to say what is and isn't news or "truth" and isn't "truth" since so many people are bias with it. However, we can define what is hear say and what has evidence. CBC posting stories on a crack smoking mayor without evidence would clearly fail this. There is no proof. It was slander. Having people discuss their opinions is not proof. People calling themselves experts are not proof. These are all the same as "blogs." To me, news should not make you go "hmm, that's what I thought." It should be going "Man, really? The sucks! Screw them, I'm angry now." In other words, the news shouldn't agree with every belief one has or one isn't seeking the truth, anymore, they are looking for confirmation (like Liberals would watching CBC - "I hate the mayor!"). That's not to say things always need to be shocking or you can't guess what was going on... There is the "He said/She said" approach. An interviewer can ask both sides, the victim and the assaulter, for example, and people can hear both sides but a news agency shouldn't conclude anything.### Assistant: That's a grey area. As a US Citizen, I *want* my press to be able to do some investigative journalism, where they state "possible" and "likely" as long as they're straight-up about it, and the solidity of it. I just don't want "we know it's false, but fuck it!"

### Human: CMV: Although I fully support the West, I don't see us as the good guys### Assistant: > The atrocities committed in the past Pretty much everyone was committing atrocities in the past, if that makes us the bad guys then everyone is the bad guys. It is undeniable that we did it on a significantly bigger scale, but that's just because we were the first to get the advanced tech. If somebody else got it first, they would have done the same. Like the Assyrians when they invented the horse stirrup, or the Mongols fucking up most of Asia and Europe using advanced siege weaponry and so on. > Meddling in other countries' business Yet according to every statistic, the world is doing a lot better and is more peaceful today than ever in history. Yes, in some situations the west made things worse (like the recent Iraq fiasco), but in other situations it made things a lot better, for example Japan and South Korea. If it wasn't for the west, Seoul would likely be the capital of Kim Jong Un's hermit kingdom. > Diluting other cultures. Just because people like to watch western movies doesn't mean the local cultures have disappeared. Exactly the opposite, we see vibrant development in local culture and arts in almost every society. And this is hugely due to technology coming from the west - the industrial revolution freed many people from manual labor, allowing them to have more time to do culture. Electronics allowed billions of people to create and consume art. A Japanese singer can reach all of Japan by recording their song and putting it on the internet. And would the success of Bollywood in India be a reality if the west didn't invent movies in the first place? > Accusing other powers of being bullies. Well, they often are bullies. Sure, we are bullies too, but hypocrisy doesn't make their actions any different. A lot of the "Oh we are totally nice, why does the west blame us?" is nothing but propaganda. For example, you mention the South China Sea, but have looked at an actual map to see what the Chinese claims are? They don't want the coastal regions, they want all of it. Here, take a look at tell me that's fair: (it's marked in red) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: > Without the West, there would be no communism either and so no Kims in power I don't think this is true. There seems to be a certain proclivity for autocracy in certain time periods. If he weren't a "communist," he would have just been a monarch or something similar. To prove this, examine the Russian proclivity for a strong leader as espoused by a long history of autocrats - tsars, Soviet secretaries (Stalin), and now Putin. You could make an argument for Russia being "western," however, there is intense internal debate on that matter in Russia. Regardless, whatever "political system" they seem to adopt, an autocrat still seems to rise to the top - whether among boyars, committees, or politicians. In truth, when these countries "westernize," they may not be adopting everything - culture, morals, politics, or technology.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Victeurrr. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Victeurrr)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

### Human: I believe that people who can't function or be happy without a coffee or other energy drink first in the morning are addicts in the same line as cocaine or heroin devotees. CMV### Assistant: It is a physical addiction, with some unpleasant side effects. The problem with your analogy is that you are comparing a 2 MPH breeze with a 200 MPH tornado. The difference between them, although technically only a difference in degree, is large enough to be a de facto difference in kind. In rhetorical terms, it's like comparing a prolonged hand shaker to a rapist. Yes, they are both violations of one's body, but the rhetorical trick is so far out there as to be offensive. Side note: you co-workers that you can't talk to before coffee are more likely just using it as an excuse to have some peace as they ease into their workday. Edit: grammar### Human: My guess is that there is a qualitative difference between a 2 MPH breeze and a 200 MPH tornado. Clearly, both require a cause but a breeze immediately will stop upon the cause's removal while tornadoes self-perpetuate. I think the difference is that of laminar versus turbulent flow; both result from an object's movement through a fluid but turbulence continues even after the causal object passes. My best example of the difference between laminar and turbulent flow is from canoeing. Your stroke always propels you but a gentle stroke exhibits no continuation while a stronger stroke produces a vortex that self-perpetuates after your paddle is removed from the water. If you want no qualitative differences then the analogy may be based on the differing strengths of tornadoes. While all of this is admittedly pedantic, I do think there are interesting conversations to be had about qualitative differences that only exist because of quantitative differences in a separate, but connected, degree of freedom.### Assistant: To some extent, I was lifting this analogy from my radiation worker training to explain the concept of nonlinear damage effects. Most damage effects are very nonlinear: - Most weather phenomena (1 inch of rain does not cause 1/12 the damage of a foot of rain) - Weight - a one ton mass on your shoulders will cause extensive skeletal damage. a 100kg mass will not cause 10% of the damage. - Radiation dosages - Electrical shocks So, pick your analogy of choice...### Human: I tried to say that I think there is a qualitative difference between the 2 MPH breeze and the 200 MPH tornado. I thought you were stating there is a quantitative, and not a qualitative, difference between caffeine and herion addiction, so I thought the analogy of two tornadoes of different power was more appropriate. I would be interested to hear whether you thought there was a qualitative difference between the two types of addictions.### Assistant: Okay, you also said it was very pedantic, which I took to mean that you realized you were being a bit silly. I see now you've missed the point a bit. Here's what I would say in response - you are losing the forest for the trees. If I am complaining about a stiff breeze (admittedly we could argue that a 20MPH wind is a better example) and someone else is complaining about a tornado, and I say "they are both just kinds of wind" the comment, though technically true, is so reductive as to be offensive. To try to compare an EF-1 tornado to an EF-5 still sets "coffee" and "heroin" too close together. Trying to be more scientifically precise here does a disservice. As you said yourself it was being pedantic, I took that to mean you knew you were being a bit nitpicky and so I was content to leave it at that.

### Human: CMV: Transsexual people reinforce Genders and Gender Stereotypes.### Assistant: It's just easier. I'm a trans guy. I was assigned female at birth, and I transitioned and now I have a beard/dress as male etc. Really? I don't give a shit. I could wear a dress, wear make-up, none of that would personally matter to me as I don't see the point in gendering pieces of cloth and shit that you put on my face. But if I did that, it would make my day to day life much harder. I would have to take so much shit. If I didn't 'act male', I wouldn't have had access to hormones, treatment, all of that stuff because I wouldn't be 'transgender enough'. Trans people are not the issue here - many of us would happily be less conforming to gender roles. But if we do that, we get harassed and told we're not real enough. So we have extra pressure to conform. Most trans people just want to live normal lives, just like everyone else. I just want to go to work, maybe have a drink now and again, play games on my computer, pet my dog. I don't want everything I do to be some kind of statement against gender, it's exhausting and opens me up to physical & sexual assault and harassment.### Human: " i was a assigned female at birth." No, you ARE female. That's like saying a white person was "assigned white at birth"### Assistant: Sure, edgy.### Human: Saying basic facts is now edgy?### Assistant: Depends on your definition of a fact.### Human: No it really doesn't. You are not assigned basic biology, it's just something you have. Nobody is "assigned white at birth" they just are white. Nobody is "assigned female at birth" they're just female.### Assistant: Even if you wanted to argue that, you would be wrong. No one has their genotype tested at birth, sex is assigned by looking at a baby's genitals, which can also be wrong given various intersex conditions. Regardless, gender has nothing to do with sex. So yes, I was assigned female at birth. I am no longer female. Both my doctors & the law is on my side on this one. What medical institution backs up your erroneous 'facts', edgy?### Human: >Even if you wanted to argue that, you would be wrong. No I wouldn't > No one has their genotype tested at birth you don't need one to know someone's biological sex > sex is assigned by looking at a baby's genitals Well yeah, because that's what determines whether you're male or female. > Regardless, gender has nothing to do with sex Yes it does, it's synonymous. Even then you said "female" which indicates sex. >I was assigned female at birth. No, you are female > I am no longer female. This is false. You are still female. >Both my doctors & the law is on my side on this one. Doctors do not believe that anybody is "assigned" a sex. No real creditable doctor believes that genital reassignment surgery or taking hormones actually changes your biological sex.

### Human: CMV: Childhood obesity is, universally, the result of terrible parenting. My coworker thinks I'm wrong, but is too inarticulate to counter my point. Can you?### Assistant: It's important to differentiate between an individual parenting failure and "terrible parenting". I agree that allowing a child to become that out of shape is unquestionably a failure, but all parents fail in one way or another. I don't have any kids myself, but I've been lead to believe that most parenting is ultimately an exercise in mitigating and correcting failures; both your own and those of your children. If every child who doesn't do well in school, have satisfying hobbies, have an active social life, have no discipline problems and do enough physical activity to stay in shape *all at once*; I'm not sure how many "good parents" actually exist. Kids have problems, that doesn't always mean their parents are bad. It usually means they dropped one ball in the middle of a very difficult juggling act.### Human: Analogy, you are in class and didn't study well for an exam, and get an F in that exam. Overall, you make an A in the class and maintain a 4.0 GPA. By OPs view, the student is a failure because of that one fault. I'm not sure that's something that holds up well. I do want to put in an anecdote while I'm here, though. I was obese as a child. I don't think that was because my parents had "terrible parenting" skills because of that: a lot of my calories came from school, sometimes I would buy snacks, I didn't exercise much outside of soccer, etc. There were a lot of things that had an effect on my weight. Furthermore, my sisters were/are all pretty average or skinny. If it were the case that obesity is caused by terrible parenting, and the same parenting was used on my sisters as they used on me, wouldn't it hold that there's something outside of the parenting that has an effect?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You're making a completely different analogy. Both of them work, but are saying different things.### Assistant: His analogy is more relevant because an obese child is the result of consistent failure, as opposed to one slip-up that has no noticeable effect on the net result. If you are going to use grades as a metaphor for a healthy lifestyle, then being obese is more like failing pretty much every paper you sit. To take the analogy further, it could be considered negligent for parents to allow their child to get consistently terrible grades without stepping in.### Human: If I understood you well, you kinda stepped out of the initial frame of the analogy. No analogy is perfect, and in the original analogy the school was the kid's general upbringing, and being in good shape is just one class. Now I'd agree that you can take the analogy further and say the kid is consistently bad at that one subject, but is that enough to say the kid's performance in school is unsatisfactory? I don't think anyone is arguing that having an F in one subject is better than not or even neutral, but however in the grand scheme of things where you have 12+ subjects it doesn't seem to be enough to override other good grades.### Assistant: That kinda falls flat in that health can't be considered 1/12th of a quality up-bringing. Not all aspects of an upbringing will effect the child's quality of life in the same, proportional way as grades effect a grade point average. If the kid is excelling at everything else in their life, but is obese, that obesity is not going to simply bring them from the perfect life to the 11/12 on the perfect scale, it will be quite detrimental to their quality of life and will drastically reduce their life-span.### Human: This right here. Being obese has health, self esteem, social, employment implications, etc.

### Human: CMV: the defense of "I was afraid for my life" should not be sufficient (on its own) to justify a law enforcement officer shooting someone.### Assistant: I want to point out that the "reasonably" part of "reasonably believes" covers a lot of what you've said here. If it was just about the officer's actual belief, the phrasing would be "sincerely believes", not "reasonably".### Human: I agree. I think my point here is largely semantic, so I don't see why it's so controversial. All I'm arguing for is that we qualify the word "reasonably" with a few criteria that may already be in use in some places.### Assistant: Because it ends up with an jury that doesn't have experience being in hostile environments judging someone who does. In the military, soldiers are tried by other soldiers, exclusively, so that standard can be employed reasonably. You're trying to quantify something that the people doing the judging have no way to actually quantify. It's taking *one* opportunity for reasonable doubt about innocence and turning it into three, without any exceptionally good reason... since it's basically just a semantic argument. Generally we don't allow that in trials.### Human: That's not true. Many crimes have multiple elements. It's much more common than not.### Assistant: Yes, but those are of the nature of "you must have this, and this, and this *in order for us to convict you*". You are proposing "you must have this, and this, and this *in order to *acquit* you". There is a crucial difference between the two. Mens rea plus actus rea gives the defendent 2 chances to *go free*. Intent, Capability, and Opportunity gives the defendent 3 chances to be *convicted*. It's much more like accusing someone who robbed a bank of 10 other things and hoping that one will stick.### Human: What you're describing is still very common. It's not odd at all for a crime to have some elements where committing any one of them is enough to fulfill the underlying requirement. So, for example, higher degrees of assault often require either having used certain kinds of weapons *or* having assaulted certain kinds of people (like police) *or* having done a certain amount of damage to the victim. Any one of those is sufficient to make a normal assault into an aggravated assault, and so the defense needs to defend against all three while the prosecution only needs to prove any one.

### Human: I don't believe that shirtless laws (or lack thereof) should be allowed for both sexes, CMV### Assistant: So, to clarify, you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to show their breasts because you're not allowed to stare or touch them? Generally, you're *not* allowed to touch another person in society. If you tried any of that pushing with strangers, you'd be out of line socially and legally, regardless of the gender of the person you touched, and regardless of whether their chest is bare or covered. The bouncer can touch you because he's an authority figure, not because you're a man. Bouncers throw women out of bars all the time, and yes, sometimes they touch their chest in the process. If you stare, you might be found creepy, but there's no legal prohibition on looking at another person in a public space. If you get in their face or stalk them, that's different, but looking at their breasts or looking at their face is no different in the eyes of the law. As someone who lives in a place where nudity is legal, and has been in plenty of situations with non-sexual nudity, it really isn't a big deal, and the hypocrisy you see is mostly your own imagination. If people can go around wearing itsy-bitsy bikinis, why does a nipple suddenly push it over the line?### Human: Ah, I actually like the whole "if people can wear tiny bikinis, but a nipple slip is terrible" argument. I don't agree that this hypocrisy is in my imagination, though. First off, I've never seen any lady get kicked out of a public place for touching a mans chest, nor have I ever heard of legal action being (successfully) brought against them. In my own personal experience, I've seen plenty of guys get full-on shoved on the chest, or even given 'purple-nurples' by females at bars or other social venues with no consequence. No one takes a guy seriously if he cries sexual harassment in those cases. So the argument that you're generally not allowed to touch people in public, while true in most cases, I've certainly seen instances where it doesnt apply. Even people familiar with each other (friends and acquaintances) give acceptance to touching the male chest over the womans, depending on the openness of the relationship. And no, my original argument isn't >people shouldn't be allowed to show their breasts because you're not allowed to stare or touch them? my argument is that we, as an american culture, have a particular social standard, and the same people arguing for same shirtless rights generally should probably have their entire viewpoint altered.### Assistant: >First off, I've never seen any lady get kicked out of a public place for touching a mans chest, nor have I ever heard of legal action being (successfully) brought against them. In my own personal experience, I've seen plenty of guys get full-on shoved on the chest, or even given 'purple-nurples' by females at bars or other social venues with no consequence. No one takes a guy seriously if he cries sexual harassment in those cases. So the argument that you're generally not allowed to touch people in public, while true in most cases, I've certainly seen instances where it doesnt apply. >Even people familiar with each other (friends and acquaintances) give acceptance to touching the male chest over the womans, depending on the openness of the relationship. This is a social standard, not a legal one. Under the definition of the law, a purple nurple is assault. Try it on a cop and you're going to jail. Even a woman. Unless the guy's too embarrassed to pursue it, which is a social pressure. There are issues around bodily autonomy and consent in our society, and people don't always have the respect for other people that they should have. There are men who grope women's asses or rub up against them and get away with it, too, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is legal or right. Are the people who are advocating for topless rights the same ones going around assaulting men? I doubt it. Unless they're the same people or supporting the practice, it's not hypocritical. And if it is, would the better resolution for women to cover their boobs, or women to stop assaulting men?### Human: Here is, perhaps, a better scenario. You and I are coworkers. I am a male. You are a female. We know each other a little bit, but are pretty much just acquaintances. I walk up behind you and tap you very gently on the shoulder to get your attention. Now, unless you've told me before that you have personal space preferences, I don't think that would hold up as assault in any way in a court room. Sure, if you've told me before, then assault is on the table. But I think by any reasonable measure that a tap on the shoulder would *not* constitute assault. I would say it wouldn't even pass as assault if it was a stranger and not a coworker. Now, let's say that instead of tapping you on the shoulder gently, I reached around and tapped you on the boob gently. No hard grabbing, no squeezing, nothing. Just a tap similar to a shoulder tap. And let's also say that you're a woman who is in support of women being allowed to be shirtless (which I agree with) in public. Do you *really*, **honestly** think you'd react like it was no big deal...like it was just "any other body part"? I think not. This is OP's point...and it's a fair one.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: >The male chest isn't seen as being an overtly sexual body part so there isn't a clear reason to touch it. This is really the heart of OP's claim. It really has nothing to do with being touchable or stare-able or not. It's that the male chest is not a sexual body part and the female chest is. Because we, as a society, have laws governing the covering of all overtly sexual body parts (breasts and genitals), breasts should be covered (at least from OP's point of view).### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: If I'm going to argue for what I perceive OP to be arguing: Female breasts must be desexualized prior to the legalization of their being allowed unexposed in public. To do otherwise would be to do inconsistently with our current laws and legal attitudes.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: This is irrelevant. The question here is legal.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Do you feel it is alright to flash a child?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: No, but then, do you think its OK to flash a child with specifically sexual intent? I'm still not infringing on someone's rights, but there is a line.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: I do not believe in the existence of a "soul" CMV### Assistant: [Qualia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). Qualia are the highlights of conscious experience. The *experience* of the color red. The *pain* of a cut. The *sound* of a crash. I know that I *experience* these things. When I pinch my arm, my nervous system carries a signal to my brain that notifies it of the stimulus. But there is something additional: an actual experience of the pain. This experience is a quale. The philosopher David Chalmers has a thought-experiment that really highlights this, involving what he calls [philosophical zombies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). In short, imagine a world just like our own, down to every last quark and gluon. When you pinch me, I say "Ow!". I can sit and watch a sunset, and remark that the sky is purple. But unlike our world, in this new world I never actually *experience* anything. This seems totally possible. After all, reacting to a pinch only requires the transmission of the stimulus to the brain, not a conscious experience. So his argument is this: Let's suppose that the physical description of our world accounts for everything. This view is called *physicalism*, and though you didn't explicitly endorse it in your post, it is quite likely similar to the opinion you seem to hold. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#Zombie_arguments) has a more thorough form of the argument, if you are interested. So now we have two worlds that are physically identical, down to every last detail. But in one world, we have conscious experience, and in the other we don't. So it cannot possibly be that the physical description of the world accounts for everything in it: for one, it doesn't account for consciousness. Thus physicalism must be false. This argument is logically valid, but some people take issue with some of the premises. For one, it is possible that a complete physical description of the world *would* account for consciousness, therefore it would be logically impossible for an exact physical clone of our universe to be missing conscious experience. Much has been written about this specific argument, both in favor and in opposition. I'd like to return, though, to qualia. Any worldview has to account for qualia. For entirely physical worldviews, this means that qualia ultimately are physical. There are some famous arguments, however, that try and show that this cannot be so. One such is the [knowledge argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument). Here is one form by Frank Jackson: > Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? One might say that she *does* learn something: what the actual experience of the color blue is. Therefore, since she had a complete physical knowledge of the color blue, but still learned something about blue: she learned something non-physical. So, back to souls. Does any of this offer any support for the classicial notion of a soul, where after one dies he goes to heaven to spend eternity with Grandma and Grandpa, swimming in rivers of milk and honey? Of course not. It doesn't even say much about personal identity. These arguments only support the notion that our conscious experience cannot be fully explained by a physicalist worldview. I've quoted Schrodinger in another reply, because he was such a colorful guy, and I'll conclude with another quote of his: > The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so. Personally, as a philosophical lay-person, I'm swayed by these arguments. I have read many counters to them, but none of them have particularly resonated with me. On the other hand, I can imagine someone coming to the opposite conclusion: that all of the talk about qualia and philsophical zombies amounts to sweeping what we don't quite understand under a rug and calling it magic. I hope, however, that I've shown that there is something of a debate to be had about consciousness. This debate has very little to say about what we would normally call a "soul", but if we water-down the definition to basically mean "something apart from our physical brain", then one might be able to make a case.### Human: > She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we....Will she learn anything or not? Clearly she won't as you've just defined her as already having that information. >that all of the talk about qualia and philsophical zombies amounts to sweeping what we don't quite understand under a rug and calling it magic. That's the conclusion I've come to, more or less.### Assistant: > Clearly she won't as you've just defined her as already having that information. Not quite. I would say that she *experiences* the color blue for the first time, and thus acquires new knowledge. The thought experiment intends to show that this knowledge is nonphysical. > That's the conclusion I've come to, more or less. That's quite a valid position, and one held by many philosophers. I'm curious, which of their critiques do you find most convincing? It is also worth noting that the view I am arguing for is also popular in modern philosophy.### Human: >knowledge is nonphysical. Oh. Didn't see that distinction the first time. I don't think questions of the form "If X happens, will Y or Z happen?" are appropriate for philosohizing. I think the only effective way to answer them is through scientific testing, that is to say, actually setting up this situation and seeing what happens. But, to determine whether this scientist learns something, we have to define "learning something". I'm not sure where to begin on that. >I'm curious, which of their critiques do you find most convincing? I haven't really looked into any philosophical writings on the issue, It's just my own personal conclusion.### Assistant: Ah, I see. The thought-experiment I have proposed with Mary in the black-and-white room is not my creation, rather it is a form of the [knowledge argument](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/). It is a valid philosophical argument, in that if the propositions are true, then the conclusion must follow. Of course, it's debatable whether the propositions are true. I'd suggest investigating the matter more thoroughly, even if just for fun. I probably held opinions similar to your own before being introduced to the body of literature on the mind body problem. Wikipedia is actually a pretty good resource on the subject, as is the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philsophy, which I've linked to above.### Human: I think I'll read up on it. Thanks.

### Human: I'm a German living in North america and completely hate every aspect of it. I truly believe Germany is superior to both Canada and the U.S. in most ways. CMW### Assistant: You're not exactly comparing apples to apples here. Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America, behind Mexico City, NYC and LA. Dortmund has approximately 600 000 people according to wikipedia. Obviously the social ills you're complaining about are going to be magnified when you live in a city 10x larger than the one you're comparing it to. Your comment about there being no trades is just asinine. As a Canadian tradesman I assure you that we are in fact installing and maintaining indoor plumbing, have a continent-wide electrical grid and provide the necessary skills for an advanced manufacturing sector. Just because you're not seeing it on Yonge Street doesn't mean it's not happening. If you're after great architecture Toronto might not be your best bet. Montreal and Quebec City have old cities that date back 400 years, you'll be able to see more European style buildings there. For modern architecture NYC, Chicago and LA are full of interesting buildings from the last 100 years. As for the MRI fast tracking it exists in Alberta. Most free-standing diagnostic clinics are privately owned and contract to the provincial government. If you wait 6 months it's free, if you want to go tomorrow it's about $700. Superior is a subjective word. Germany's different for sure, but superior is a little hard to objectively prove. There are some counter arguments against Germany's superiority, here's one: Germany is almost a monoculture. 90%+ of the German population is German by nationality. Compare this to Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver where more than [40% of the population is a visible minority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#2011). Speaking as a Canadian we don't take an "us vs. them" attitude as often because we ARE them. A good portion of Canada (myself and my wife included) doesn't have to go back any farther than their grand parents to find immigrants in their family. This gives us a vibrancy as a culture that's hard for Germany to match.### Human: >Germany is almost a monoculture. 90%+ of the German population is German by nationality. Compare this to Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver where more than [1] 40% of the population is a visible minority. Speaking as a Canadian we don't take an "us vs. them" attitude as often because we ARE them. A good portion of Canada (myself and my wife included) doesn't have to go back any farther than their grand parents to find immigrants in their family. This gives us a vibrancy as a culture that's hard for Germany to match. but this is implying that it's advantageous or even superior when there is a diverse culture in a country. You really could have picked a better example to show how canada is better. Btw. you also compared germany to single cities like toronto or vancouver.### Assistant: >but this is implying that it's advantageous or even superior when there is a diverse culture in a country. Implying that it isn't?### Human: i literally can't think of a single reason why diversity might be a bad thing... especially when we are strictly speaking about people.### Assistant: >i literally can't think of a single reason why diversity might be a bad thing i also cant think of a reason why it's a good thing. I am not saying that it's bad, or good, because in my opinion it's irrelevant.### Human: Its good because for one, it makes life more interesting. Also, because you get to experience a wide variety of viewpoints, experiences, and ways of doing things. Life is just cooler in a place like San Francisco, where you can meet and work with people from Mexico, China, Europe, the midwestern US all in a single day.### Assistant: Not just "cooler", more driven as well. Those who choose to emigrate from their home countries are often unbelievably driven and extremely motivated. A mindset that can pass down a generation or two. Wonder why most of our doctors are Indian/Asian nationality? [Shahid Khan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Khan) has one of the most extreme poor-to-riches story out there.

### Human: CMV: Economic conservatives are overly idealistic, rather than those on the economic left### Assistant: I feel like you're argument is more successful in claiming that both sides have their sense of "idealism" placed in different places than that conservatives are more idealistic than liberals.### Human: At least on a fundamental level there's a much more straightforward argument for conservative idealism than there is for liberal idealism. Austrian economic theory, the driving intellectual force behind the collection of fiscal stances embraced by conservative voting blocs in most countries, rejects empiricism in favor of praxeology, or the logical deduction of specific principles from simple axioms. Fiscal conservatives are idealistic in the purest sense of the word because the philosophical underpinning of their stances is based solely on thought experiments and presuppositions about how the world works rather than observable data. There was an [excellent recent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/3rl7vu/is_there_a_consensus_among_economists_about_the/cwq5uut?context=3) in /r/Neutralpolitics that explains it much more succinctly than I can, should you be interested in learning more about it.### Assistant: Austrian economics != conservatism. For instance, Milton Friedman was one of if not the most prominent conservative economists of the past century, and was emphatically not an Austrian. Friedman's monetarist thinking was profoundly empirical, and his and Schwartz' *Monetary History of the United States* is essentially 100% empiricist.### Human: He's definitely a major influence, but you simply can't argue that he's a bigger one than Mises et. al. Every Republican president since Friedman won his Nobel has advocated supply-side, and while his work has shaped some policy (probably most notably the response to the 2008 collapse) it's simply not on the same scale.### Assistant: To argue the Austrians are a bigger influence than the Monetarists, I think you'd need to show areas where the different policy prescriptions of Austrians gained traction. The general love for business and low taxes espoused by the Republicans is not something that differentiates monetarists and Austrians. What uniquely Austrian policies have been implemented in the past 40 years? I would say Friedman won the battle for monetary policy, and the Fed is now acting in a profoundly monetarist way, as you yourself alluded to with the 2008 collapse and response thereto. What's the comparable policy victory for Austrianism?

### Human: CMV: I believe it is irresponsibly anti-science to claim that a breed of dog (ie: Pit Bull) can't be genetically predisposed to violent behavior, and it should be treated the same as owning a large exotic predatory cat (Tiger, Leopard, etc).### Assistant: Do you have any good data outside of your personal anecdotal experience? Keep in mind that higher number of attacks by a certain may be due to environmental rather than genetic issues. For example many pitbull bites may be attributable to bad people specifically seeking out pitbulls for viscous training. Tl:dr do you have SCIENTIFIC evidence that some breed ate genetically more dangerous?### Human: I have not seen conclusive scientific evidence that breaks down the genetics of pit bulls over other breeds. All I have is anecdotal evidence backed up by statistical studies such as the much-discussed [Annals of Surgery report](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022) that only shows that pit bulls as a breed attack humans at a rate far disproportionate to their actual breed representation. Which certainly can be explained away by environmental issues such as training and types of owners, but I take that with my years of anecdotal experience with pit bulls that were never abused or trained aggressively, but rather kept as family dogs and just "snapped" regardless. There are many documented cases of that happening, also above and beyond most other breeds. I would personally love to see an actual scientific study of the genetics of breeds that somehow results in the vindication of certain breeds. Not just pits, but Rotts, Dalmations, etc. If it is true, as people imply, that there are "no bad breeds, only bad owners", then life is a lot simpler. But that doesn't have the ring of good science to me. On its face it seems akin to saying there are no "bad" animals, period, which is obviously a dangerous way to think when talking about keeping domesticated pets in residential areas.### Assistant: So, given lack of scientific evidence: should not we withhold judgments until better evidence is obtained rather than make arduous laws that may turn out to be useless?### Human: I didn't make this a major point of my post, but I believe the sheer destructive capabilities of certain breeds along with their attack rates should be enough on its own to make ownership of them highly restricted. We should definitely withhold personal judgements, which I think I try to do, but this is about my own personal view. Which is that I believe pit bulls and a handful of other breeds are clearly genetically bred to be more violent, and therefore should be handled differently. I'm here because I want someone to change that view with science.### Assistant: Your view is that we should make XXX law. However, you admit that there is no conclusive scientific evidence about XXX. Should not this be enough for you to change your view?### Human: There may be no conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. Someone in this thread has provided at least one study that shows the rate of "unprovoked" attacks by pit bulls are drastically higher than other breeds. Unfortunately that reinforces my view, unless there are some comparable studies that can somehow quantifiably prove that every single owner trained those dogs specifically for unprovoked attacks. But seeing as how all breeds can and do end up in aggressively abusive homes, I don't see how that's possible. All the studies we do have, while not ultimately conclusive, seem to back up the overall assertion that there is something different about pit bulls as a breed.### Assistant: Again the study fails to account for environmental factors. It is known that bad people and criminals prefer certain breeds: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065657 Thus, it is not surprising that those breeds will be trained to be viscous more than other breeds. Banning one breed, may just cause bad people to train OTHER breed to be bad. If we start passing laws without better evidence we may as spend a lot of resources on a futile "whack a mole" goose chase: ban one "bad" breed, another one pops out. There is no evidence that some dogs are GENETICALLY more dangerous.### Human: We implemented stricter regulations surrounding hand guns for the exact same reason. More crime committed with hand guns=stricter policies when it comes to hand guns. There is a precedent. Hand guns aren't inherently (genetically) more dangerous than a rifle; in fact, arguably less so. But they are responsible for way more violent crime (dog attacks) than rifles, and thus are more difficult to purchase.### Assistant: Our gun laws are a mess. There is no good evidence that regulating some types of guns actually does anything.

### Human: CMV: Scientific papers should not be kept behind paywalls### Assistant: The money from paywalls is used to keep science *journals* afloat, though there are some journals that are entirely open, and that get their funding from either charging people who submit papers a significant fee, or get it from another organization. I'm definitely a fan of open access journals, but the fact remains that some of the most prestigious journals aren't, and probably won't ever follow that model. Plus, keeping a model that's free from outside influences (as could potentially be the case in an open-access journal) because readers pay for subscriptions, it's not another organization or submitters that pay, isn't necessarily a bad idea. As can be seen with politics, dependance on "the funders" can have a subtle, corrupting influence overtime, which is definitely very bad. The fact of the matter is that running a journal costs money. There's (potentially) the physical publication of the journal, there's storing the article online (and associated fees with people accessing it), administrative costs, et cetera. It'd be great if these things could all be free, but that's unrealistic. For journals with paywalls, actual scientists don't pay. It's their university that pays, and generally they but subscriptions to the journal in bulk for *everyone* at the university, at a greatly reduced rate. In the event they can't get an article for some reason (obscure journal, etc.) it's pretty easy to email a colleague at another university that might have access or even the author of the article and get a still-free copy, so it's still not really taking money away from science. It's just taking a small amount of money away from students. The only people who actually pay for articles behind paywalls are generally really interested members of the public who can't get it any other way and have the money to spare (do they exist?), or people who want the article for some kind of corporate purpose and can just expense it (rare, but it happens).### Human: Well, you said that people in the public are very rarely interested in paying so much. But if they were free, wouldn't there be much more engagement? Or maybe there could be a system that's like the software TeamViewer, where it's "free for personal use", but organizations must pay.### Assistant: >But if they were free, wouldn't there be much more engagement? I'm not so sure. Scientific articles can often be filled with jargon that can be difficult to decipher by the untrained eye. Really, this is why we have science *journalists* at major periodicals.### Human: And just to add, those science journalists at major periodicals often do a horrendously bad job of representing the science that they're reporting on. Part of this is clearly pressure to sensationalize everything to garner more clicks/views (and thus more revenue), but a good part is also not really understanding what they're reporting on (or at least, a *lot* of people in the edit-chain not understanding it, and butchering a correct but simplified representation beyond all recognition). I mean, if people whose job it is to report on this stuff aren't even really understanding it, what are the odds a layperson is really going to understand it?### Assistant: Former science journalist here. Not to play No True Scotsman, but I think the issue with the major periodicals is a _lack_ of science journalists. The number of newspapers with a dedicated science section has been [almost literally decimated](http://www.cjr.org/currents/hard_numbers_jf2013.php) over the last 15 years. Science magazines are also dropping like flies — that's why I'm now a PIO for a research university instead of a journalist. I think the root of this problem is something that's not exclusive to scientific topics, but science is definitely one area where the effects are very visible. Basically, unless you are a media organization with the clout of the New York Times, traditional reporting is not cost-effective. As you say, there are _disincentives_ for taking the time/effort/resources to truly understand a topic, and the very nature of science makes this a particularly large chasm to cross. Especially for online publications, writers are working on quantity-over-quality model, so are just not going to take the time to speak with the handful of people in the world who can explain whatever the news happens to be. And even if they do the reporting, they're increasingly unlikely to have any specific training in how to write about these topics for a general audience. Their editors, as you also said, are even less likely to have the context to catch errors or clarify explanations. That's if they have editors at all. This is all to say that, yes, it's highly unlikely that access to primary literature is going to help the public understand or engage with science. As a PIO, my job is to foster that engagement about new research coming from my faculty. I read their scientific papers every day, but I would never write about them without having a detailed discussion with the researchers first. There's just no way I would trust my own understanding to get it right.### Human: You know the historical meaning of decimated is to remove one in ten, right? I.e. you would have 90% left afterwards.### Assistant: Yeah, that was an unforced error on my part — I actually am an etymology buff, but misremembered the origin as _leaving_ 10%, not _taking_ 10%. It's much closer to 20% in any case.

### Human: CMV Modern nuclear power is by far the superior choice of energy production and we should fund nuclear technology on a larger scale### Assistant: There is no doubt that we should be moving away from fossil fuel sources like Coal. Nuclear tech has gotten much better, but so have renewables. Centralized production like a Nuclear Plant has benifits like being able to feed an entire grid and ability to react to changing demand. It also has major problems, specifically single point of failure. Melt downs are not an issues, but that doesn't mean shut downs won't happen. If a melt down starts, the fail safe kicks in and the entire plant goes dark. This leaves millions without power. This single point of failure is also a tempting target for terrorism for this reason. Solar pannels on every roof solves this problem. There is no way to "turn off" power production. There isn't a single point of failure to be attacked or malfunction. There are problems with the ability to react to changing demands and the ability to produce enough power for industrial uses. Nuclear Tech is a very viable choice. It's not "by far superior". It has different strengths and weaknesses than other tech like Solar.### Human: So you argue against centralized power in general?### Assistant: Decentralizing energy production has some serious benefits, and some serious down sides. Centralized production has serious benefits and serious down sides. Neither is "by far superior". The production scheme most advantageous is situational.### Human: So... why not both?### Assistant: No reason at all. Solar and nuclear work especially well together. Nuclear running near 100% all the time lets it maximize return on its capital costs. Solar during the day provides extra power when demand is higher. The combination doesn't match the demand curve exactly, but closer than either technology alone. (Some advanced nuclear plants, especially molten salt reactors, are *capable* of load following, but they're still more economical if they run full-time.)

### Human: Oil played huge role in the Iraq war[CMV]### Assistant: I made this account to specifically reply to your post. Let's get this ball rolling shall we? First and foremost, I understand why you believe what you do because most westerners are painfully oblivious to the crazy geopolitics within the Middle East and so in searching for a justification for the war a lot of people go searching for reasons which they can understand and for most that is oil. Though I cannot say that I was in the room when the planning was done for the war, I can say that oil would be an incredibly stupid reason for a war with Iraq and that like another commenter posted, the likely reason for the war has a name: Israel. Here is the long, long story: Up until World War II, much of what is typically called the Middle East, along with big chunks of Africa and Asia, belonged to the British Empire, however, that empire had been crumbling for much of the 20th century. British colonies were much too expensive and politically/logistically difficult to maintain, especially after both of the world wars, so much of 20th century British history is a long narrative about the restructuring of British society, both at home and abroad. The part of the narrative that is relevant to our discussion is what Britain, heavily influenced by America and France, did to the Middle East in its efforts to decolonize the region and GTFO before it cost them any more blood and treasure to effectively administrate its holdings. What did it do? Well, in accordance with the political fashion of the day of creating disincentives for war by making sure no one nation had an absolute advantage over the other Britain decided to cut up the Middle East into roughly even sized chunks along natural geographic barriers like mountains, rivers, and the like; a very western idea of what constitutes a nation's borders. Furthermore, to compound upon their error they created the nation of Israel right in the middle of what use to be Palestine. Regardless of what you think of that decision, it is one that would prove to upset the geopolitics of the region from the very get go and still does to this very day. So why do we care about this? Well, lets look at what we know as modern day Iraq. The eastern half of Iraq is more or less culturally, linguistically, and religiously identical to Iran and had the British decided to create nations based upon cultural spheres of influence, instead of geographical borders, Iraq would easily be a part of Iran. That, whoever, would have made Iran much too powerful in the region and thus to keep Iran from subjugating its neighbors they decided to split it in two. All of this proved to be a great boon to Israel, especially in the early years, because it more or less guaranteed that no one nation would be powerful enough to threaten its existence. The Arab nations were aware of this, and in what is now known as the Six-Day War of 1967 Egypt, Jordan, and Syria decided to gang up on Israel but, as the name might suggest, they were ROFL stomped into the ground by Israel's superior air capability (thank you western arms deals!). After the war Israel became the undisputed military power of the region and for the rest of the 20th century it was content with its policy of retaliating against any perceived threats with disproportional force. Enter Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Saddam Hussein decided that the British had given Iraq a raw deal by creating Kuwait as a separate country even though it was for all intents and purposes Iraqi (Kuwait is to Iraq what Texas is to America) so he decided that he was going to reclaim it for the Iraqi people. The U.S., **HAVING ALREADY SECURED OUR OIL INTERESTS IN THE AREA WITH OUR CLOSE TIES TO KUWAIT, WHO PRODUCES MORE OIL THAN IRAQ ANYWAYS,** decided that we should intervene given our business interests with Kuwait and so we did. The Gulf Wars crippled Saddam's control of Iraq and for much of the next decade the internal power struggle was a cluster fuck. So much so that it threatened to descend into a sectarian power struggle between the Sunni west and the Shia east with Iran likely to step in and take over the whole damn country (much to the delight of the Shia who have been shat upon for essentially all of Islamic history). This worried Israel because it threatened its now hegemonic power so they bitched at the U.S. for upsetting the delicate balance of power and giving Iran the opportunity to almost double its size and power. (Important note: after the Iranian Revolution in the 1970's the now theocratic Iran more or less decided that it's sole purpose was to bring about a restoration of Islamic power within the Middle East and it was going to begin by grinding Israel into dust. Hence the Israeli bitching.) Enter 9-11. The public was ready for war and it was so worked up over terrorism that it would just about do anything if it was pitched as a way to fight it. It was the perfect excuse to roll into Iraq, kick out Saddam, install a new puppet government that would bring some semblance of stability, thwart Iranian expansion, and preserve the buffer zone between Israel and Iran that Iraq had become. Fucking geo-politics man.### Human: I'm not quite sure I follow your theory. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was supposed to weaken Iran? Wouldn't the power vacuum allow Iran to annex Eastern Iraq?### Assistant: The issue was that Saddam was the only thing keeping Iraq out of Iranian control and his days were numbered. With his position severely weakened after the Gulf Wars it was necessary to remove him and set up a new government that would be pro-west and therefore anti-Iranian. Hence we started helping put Kurds into power, a group that is about as pro-western as you will find in Iraq.### Human: Were his days numbered? Is it common knowledge or something that you know from expertise? My impression was that Saddam was firmly in control of his own country after the Gulf Wars.### Assistant: Saddam's control over the country, in true Baathist fashion, was predicated upon his control of the military and nothing more. Following the Iran-Iraq War which put Iraq on the defensive for most of 1980's this military capability was severally compromised and was further degraded by Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. While it is true that he never faced political opposition of any kind thanks to his rather notorious use of state police forces to intimidate the civilian populations, he had to deal with the very same asymmetrical warfare that we encountered during the Iraq War; a task that proved near impossible with his rather aged and miniscule military forces at that time. Though we will never know how long he would of held out had we not deposed him, it is highly unlikely that the government would have survived his death given how incredibly unpopular Baathist politics had become at that point in history. So yes, his days (and by extension any kind of political stability) were numbered, the only question was how many he had remaining. Feel free to reference the two sources I gave earlier if you want to actually study the material. Otherwise, here is a slew of Wikipedia links that will really only serve as a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27athist_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

### Human: CMV: Our arrest records should not be available to the public until we are proven guilty of the crime(s) we're being accused of committing.### Assistant: Arrests are forced to be made public by law to help prevent a much more serious injustice, [secret trials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_trial). In addition, arrests are made on the basis of an accusation and you have a [constitutional right](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to face your accuser, and you know your accuser because the accusation has to be made public. If privacy was the higher mandate, you may not get that right. The public availability of an arrest is not great, I agree. However, I would rather have this problem then the alternative. There are [expungement procedures](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/expungement-of-criminal-records-basics-32641.html) for arrest records that are relatively straightforward if you were not convicted of a crime after the fact. Maybe not the level of justice you are looking for, but its something.### Human: > I would rather have this problem then the alternative. Yeah, let's see if you stick to your word when someone makes a wrong accusation against you and it sticks with your forever.### Assistant: Yeah, let's see if you stick to your word if you're arrested in secret and held for years without due process and then subjected to a secret trial and thrown in prison.### Human: I happily take the risk. You are 100000x more likely to get fucked over by a false arrest then me ending up in a secret prision.### Assistant: What risk? Assuming you are an American, you are living in a justice system that prioritizes transparency over privacy, and thus have no experience with legal systems that do the reverse. Obviously you have a much higher chance of being fucked by a false arrest than a secret trial if you are under a legal system that virtually eliminates the possibility of the latter.### Human: The risk of being accused of something you did not do. Even if it's just was a mistake, now it's public.

### Human: I believe that convicts sentenced to life without parole should be allowed to and provided the means to commit suicide. CMV### Assistant: Prisons, as with most institutions, do not want to spend more money than necessary, [especially considering the rise of the private prison industry in the U.S.](http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry) Offering suicide as an alternative to life imprisonment would mean that prisons could potentially have a large cost savings if inmates chose that option. I'm not saying prisons would necessarily encourage or pressure inmates to kill themselves, but allowing it would be just a bare step short of incentivizing it.### Human: Isn't that kind of the point OP was making?### Assistant: he was saying that it's a slippery slope from providing the means to incentivizing, and then possibly even forcing### Human: >and then possibly even forcing So, capital punishment? We (the US) already have that.### Assistant: No, because this person was sentenced to life in prison, not death.

### Human: I believe that grading on a curve is stupid. CMV### Assistant: >If the majority of the class scores a 60 percent average on an exam, and that is considered normal, then doesn't that indicate that the issue lies with the lecturer and not the student? Why need there be an issue? What's wrong with a test where the average score is a 30%, so long as it appropriately distinguishes the good students from the bad? In general, an easier test helps select for students who are careful and meticulous and don't make mistakes; a harder test helps select for students who really understand the material. So making a hard test is not a bad thing - the professor simply needs to make sure she is giving out appropriate numbers of As and Bs despite hard tests.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: A professor doesn't want you to be happy with an 85, They want you to do the best you possibly can. Your post implies that you won't try harder in the class if you know you can get a B. This is a behavior professors try to discourage. Curving at the end is one way to discourage such behavior.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: It can certainly cause some uncertainty for the student, however that uncertainty can be motivating, which is one of the reasons it is implemented. Could you explain a little how its "not in the students best interest" educationally? Sure, if you knew the exact numbers going into the final, you might be able to calculate that you only need a 22% on the final to get a C in the class, and thus completely blow off studying for the exam. However, if you don't know exactly what you'll need, its always in your best interest to study as much as possible and do your very best, which is the best outcome from an educational perspective. And if you've already done your best all semester, there is nothing left to do at the end of the semester. This argument that learning your grade too late is detrimental only holds if you were applying yourself at less than 100% throughout the semester. EDIT: thx for the delta. I wrote the above before I saw your edit, I'll leave it for posterity.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant:

### Human: CMV:Abrahamic religions, their institutions and the belief in a God are more detrimental than beneficial to Humanity: let’s kill the idols and move on.### Assistant: My main argument is going to be that Abrahamic have contributed hugely to science, and especially Western Science and engineering. My main counter argument to yours is that religion isn't required to do terrible things, and that where it has been used to do bad things something else was driving that use. So firstly, were it not for the Catholic Church, and therefore an Abrahamic relgion, there is a real chance that Europe would have lost the art of writing entirely. We know that this can happen because of the Bronze age collapse in Europe - around 800BC, several civilisations around the Mediterranean just disappeared, and didn't come back for hundreds of years, their writing and scientific accomplishments lost. This didn't happen after the collapse of the Roman Empire because of the Catholic Church - it established universities all over Europe, and spent thousands of man hours painstakingly translating ancient Greek and Roman documents so that they wouldn't be lost. The fact that they could have done more doesn't function as a counterargument in the face of the importance of what they did. We know that monks were virtually the only people in Europe who could write because all the medieval history, all the medieval science, was coming from monks. The monks who dedicated their lives to keeping ancient knowledge alive allowed the Muslims in the east to carry on the tradition, leading to the development of chemistry, the modern scientific method and much more. Furthermore, it wasn't just direct science that the church financed. While the church did fund learning institutes, and funded scientists like Copernicus and Roger Bacon, it also funded amazing works of architecture. All the huge churches and cathedrals were engineering marvels, and their construction taught medieval architects valuable lessons. It is no coincidence that most of the greatest medieval architecture was dedicated to an Abrahamic God - without religion, engineering and mathematics wouldn't developed as fast, because it wouldn't have been put to use. If not for the Church, the art of writing would have been lost in Europe, and the "dark ages" would have been far darker. Secondly, the two people that you listed - Stalin and Mao, in comparison to the Abrahamic God, both killed in the name of atheism. > In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone. Not only is blaming religion for human violence inaccurate, it ignores the fact if you blame religion for the bad things that people do with it, it is then logically inconsistent to not praise it for the good things that people do with it. >The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges. To finish, this isn't an argument that Abrahamic religions have had a net positive contribution to humanity, but simply that they haven't had a negative one. To ignore the good that they have done, and continue to do is wrong.### Human: First, let me thank you for making the first thorough and motivated reply of the thread. Church contribution to writing and sciences suffer from the chicken and egg issue: was the contribution of the Church important because of its position or did its important contributions established its powerful situation? I am more familiar with the history of writing than with the history of sciences, so let’s go with it. Church had almost a monopoly on the teaching of writing and the production of written pieces. Before Gutenberg, making a monk’s copy of a book was the only way to spread it. It came with a cost: it wasn’t uncommon for the copist to alter the text. Back then, the will and word of the original author weren’t as considered as they are today; they were regarded as a base to be built on. So yes the Church was spreading knowledge and helping preserve it, but it was also deciding what knowledge is and which pieces we should forget. See the [Index](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum) Regarding my Mao and Hitler comparison, it was not about motive but only about the amount: if you do the math and add up all the murders God is guilty of in the Bible, you obtained a number superior to the death count of these two. Whatever their motives, Hitler and Mao are not people we esteem. > My main counter argument to yours is that religion isn't required to do terrible things, and that where it has been used to do bad things something else was driving that use. This one is interesting indeed. Whatever religion says or creates, it's not about the thing itself but the interpretation people make of it. While I'm whiling to accept this argument to break the link between religion and the abuses made in their name, couldn't it also be used to break the connection between the contribution made to Western Science and engineering in the name of God?### Assistant: I think it's paradoxical to accept as true, even in theory, the "death count" of God from the Bible without also accepting (in theory) God's righteousness. If the Bible is accurate and true, God is the arbiter of good and evil and the source of all things good. It doesn't make sense to accept all acts of God contained in the Bible and apply our own morality to them, since accepting the Bible as an accurate (allegorical or otherwise) portrayal goes part and parcel with accepting God's omnipotence and righteousness.### Human: This is precisely the tension between my point 7/ and 8/. 7 saying that if we judge the text objectively, we cannot take the religious texts for their word because they are unreliable. 8/ saying that if we do take them for granted, God is not such a cool guy. One way or the other, we reach a dead end where to me the only logical solution is not accepting/believing in God and the religious text.### Assistant: I am taking issue only with your point 8. If we accept that God smote or otherwise caused the deaths of large amounts of people, we also must accept that God is the source of morality in the world and that these actions, while incomprehensible to us, were in fact just and moral. To bring this back to the wider discussion, one can easily criticize Stalin/Mao secular genocide while defending apparent theistic genocide if one accepts that God is indeed a just and moral actor.### Human: Points 7 and 8 work together. For me, the religious text are unreliable, so what is in it cannot be took for granted. However, a large amount of people grants belief to these texts, so for the sake of the argument, in point 8/ I take them for truth and evaluate God in the light of the facts they relate.### Assistant: My point is that, if you take the texts for truth, it's inconsistent to evaluate actions in them on your own moral compass instead of the moral compass of the texts themselves.

### Human: I believe that if you are born a white male, you have it easier than the rest of us. CMV.### Assistant: >Nobody is afraid of women. Most rape is by acquaintances, not in dark alleyways, so you don't have much to fear from strangers. Most violence is by strangers, and men are more likely to be attacked, so men have more reason to be afraid around strangers than women. >If I sleep around, I am a slut. If a man sleeps around, he is a stud. And that is sad, and feminists have done much to try and protect the reputation of promiscuous women. If a man sleeps around he is a stud, but what if he doesn't sleep around? Then he's a creepy virgin. Women are shamed for having too much sex, men are shamed for not having enough. And since you are on reddit, there's probably a lot of virgins here. Few are trying to boost the reputation of virgins. >Men have freedom of opportunity. A small minority of men have freedom of opportunity. In general though, men are expected to work longer hours, do more dangerous labor, travel further from home, take less breaks. This means rather terrible manual labor jobs for a lot of men. In general it means harder work. We have high obligations. >Men aren't objectified. While it's true that most men aren't objectified sexually (they are for money, though that's another story) if a man is fashionable and attractive he can expect to get objectified. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Women find the majority of men unattractive, so most men get to be ignored and dismissed by women instead. >Men don't have periods. True. >In Fortune 500 companies, only 18 CEOs are of another race. True, America was incredibly racist until recently, so people of other races don't tend to be at the top of society. >There is still heavy racism against anyone who isn't white. While your mother's story is sad and unfortunate, all that says is that racism is wrong. In some cultures it is more acceptable to discriminate against white people. Those cultures (some colleges say) are less common, but anyone who faces racism deserves sympathy, white or colored. >There are too many Asians at top colleges. The issue is more, as they say, that Asians are beating out hispanics and black people. >Religious tolerance is insanely low. Your story is about a white supremist neo nazi. That was an example of racism, not religious intolerance most likely. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html The vast majority of religious violence is against Jews, then Muslims.### Human: I'm going to use a list to respond to your responses, if you don't mind. 1. I am aware that most rapes are through association, yet most of society doesn't believe that is true. Can you provide a source stating that most violence is against men? (eg. Domestic Violence is mostly against women, and that is by association, so I'm not sure I agree that most violence is by strangers against males.) 2. ∆ I definitely agree with you here. Pretty much anything that you do that's sexual or non-sexual leads to some form of discontent. However, I'd like to believe this happens more to women than men. I have no proof or support here, so you've changed my mind. 3. I also didn't take this into mind. (This is my first post here, do I post multiple deltas or just say I agree?) I do know that for the minorities, especially, they are forced into family obligation and work long hours, many times with hard, manual labor. 4. If we're looking at a person-to-person basis, that's individual. I was talking more about society. Advertising, especially. Think: American Apparel? Also, there are plenty of women who get ignored, or don't get approached by the men they want. (aka: lower in the status chain) 5. ~ 6. Until recently? What about 9/11? We've stopped going against the "Negroes," then we stopped going against the "Japs," so now we're against the "Jihads." They haven't been denied rights (although some airport procedures may question that), but they are heavily oppressed in society. They're looked down upon, people may feel frightened to hire them, and in public places, there is a fear of their customs. 7. But in America, there is more racism against people of color. My mother isn't a lone example. I, and many other Asian-Americans (born and raised here), also receive racism from peers and authorities, starting from pretty early on from teachers and classmates. 8. Source? 9. Whether it was an example of racism or religious intolerance, it still supports my viewpoint. (I simply believe that religion and race are tied together. For example, it's hard to find a white Muslim.) Jews are also a minority, and therefore, it's still supporting my points. Thanks for taking the time in trying to change my mind.### Assistant: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf Most violent crimes against men. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence And there are many male victims of domestic violence. >However, I'd like to believe this happens more to women than men. It may or it may not, but it hurts to be bullied whether or not it happens more to women. I'd like to end all bullying, against men and women. >(This is my first post here, do I post multiple deltas or just say I agree?) I am unsure. I'd imagine you should just post multiple deltas and let deltabot sort it out. >I do know that for the minorities, especially, they are forced into family obligation and work long hours, many times with hard, manual labor. Yeah. I know quite a few minority men who essentially have to work all day and get to spend no time with their families. Racism mixed with male obligations means kids don't get to spend much time with their father, which means the kids are more likely to have problems growing up. It's not a good cycle. >If we're looking at a person-to-person basis, that's individual. We are all individuals. My knowledge of this comes from experience. I have done cosplay in skimpy outfits (since the characters wear skimpy outfits) and have had women slap my ass or pinch me. It's extremely unpleasant and I'd prefer it wasn't seen as ok for men or women. >I was talking more about society. Advertising, especially. Think: American Apparel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6G3nwhPuR4 Virgin shaming is quite common in advertising too. It's an easy marketing tool. You show how terrible someone's life who hasn't had sex was, then show them how your product changed their life and made them a happy person who had sex. (Look at our new chewing gum. Before this man was a lonely, ugly, shut in and everyone hated him. Now he chews our chewing gum and girls are falling on him. Buy it now.) >Also, there are plenty of women who get ignored, or don't get approached by the men they want. And they complain about it a lot as it sucks. It is sad to be completely unwanted. >Until recently? What about 9/11? There's certainly racism in regions, but I was talking more about obvious, state legalized racism- lynching, banning people from public transport, banning them from jobs. America used to do that. Now at least if you do really well for yourself as a minority you can get about safely. Those who don't speak English well, like your mom, have more problems. >But in America, there is more racism against people of color. Remember your article about many universities being heavily asian? If you're in a mostly white region, you're more likely to face racism against your race. If a white person (meaning, european white) is in a mostly asian region such as a mostly asian area of town in university they could easily face racism against whites. So we should devote more effort to catching racism against minorities, but white people who face racism could be just as badly hurt. On what the article said. >In California, the rise of the Asian campus, of the strict meritocracy, has come at the expense of historically underrepresented blacks and Hispanics. Their main complaint, as they repeatedly said, wasn't that white people were being beat out, it was that black people and hispanics were being beat out. >Whether it was an example of racism or religious intolerance, it still supports my viewpoint. Well, you were saying that he attacked the people because he thought they were muslims. He probably just attacked them because he hated everyone who was non white. That does support your point, but it is an important distinction- I wouldn't want a Sikh reading it and then thinking that it would be helpful telling a Neo Nazi that they weren't Muslim. Neo Nazis are generally horrible people and they hate almost everyone.### Human: Δ Thank you for all of the clarification and expansion. With those clarified points, I totally agree with you. Maybe the filter bubble has made me forget about all of the masculinity-related problems. I still do believe that being white is easier socially (maybe it's my region). However, legally and [in most cases] economically, if you are born a US Citizen, we're all the same.### Assistant: You're welcome. We men do have our issues. So do women, and both should be addressed. Being white is easier on average, but there's a lot of issues that can override that. Homelessness is a major problem for men, say. If you are a white male who is homeless then you're probably worse off than an Asian woman who doesn't speak good English and so faces racism but has a home and relative freedom from rape and violence. There's lots of different levels of privilege.

### Human: I think that Creationism and "teaching the controversy" should have no place in public schools, CMV.### Assistant: I'm a high school science teacher, so maybe I can shed some light on this. First, science class should not only be about teaching facts. While there are certain objectives that students must meet, the purpose of science is not to shove facts down someone's throat. The purpose is to question why. Why do things work the way they do? Why do we believe what we do today? Why are some things better supported than others? Second, to have a valid argument for anything, you need to present multiple sides of the story. If you read any well-written argumentative paper, they present both their side and the opposite side, which they then refute with their evidence. Having an ability to understand and refute other ideas is an essential part of learning scientific thinking. Third, I can guarantee that someone, as in one of the students, will bring it up. And then it creates a teachable moment. You don't want to sweep a student's beliefs under the rug, because then you lose a connection with them, which is important when teaching. Having a lesson already built that can be pulled out when this happens is very, very useful. Last, my goal is to create thinkers. It is much more important to create future citizens who can analyze, understand, and synthesize information. This is much better than throwing facts at them, which may then change 10 years from now. Science is not a static thing, and should not be taught as such. Scientific thinking, on the other hand, is helpful throughout someone's life. Basically, Creationism, or other ideas of the start of man/the universe, should be used as a vehicle for teaching scientific thinking instead of completely ignored. It is one of the most controversial topics, and therefore will be one of the most passionate and effective tools for accomplishing this. *edited to add this: I am not saying it should be a viable scientific theory, or taught as such. Just that ignoring it is not doing justice to those students who believe it. **second edit: I don't lead discussions about Creationism. I merely moderate student-led discussions while giving pointed questions and evidence.### Human: Should we teach holocaust denial in history classes?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Just because there are some unanswered questions about evolution does not take any credibility away from evolution. Plenty of scientific theories still have unanswered questions but we still think they are the most probable. Geological claims are also based on similar types of evidence but that doesn't weaken those claims just because humans were not around to see it. I'm not saying that teachers can't respond to creationist type questions in a science class. They should respond but we should not be discussing religious theories in science class rooms. It's not appropriate and gives credibility to those theories. Discuss creationism in a worlds religion class or something similar.### Assistant: Responding leads to discussion. And every single biology class I have taught or been in has at least one student who questions it. I'm in the Midwest, so maybe it is different in other parts of the country. The religious section is fairly large around here though. I don't bring it up to begin with, unless I'm giving a disclaimer (as in, I'm not trampling over your beliefs). I also don't try to let it be about Christian Creationism. Plenty of religions have creationist stories. Basically, it is a student-led discussion where I give pointed questions and evidence, and the discussion only begins if there are students who are balking at the idea of evolution because of their tenets and make it known to the rest of the class. It's not like I'm giving a lecture on religious theories.### Human: Ah, I see. Sorry if I made it sound like I thought you were leading the discussion in your classroom. It sounds like you are doing a good job of moderating the discussion and it's nice to hear from a perspective of an actual biology teacher. Thanks for the discussion!

### Human: I think generalizing about "reddit" as if it is a communal entity with general consensus is counterproductive. CMV### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: It reflects the aggregate opinion of those first few people who see it. The first few votes on a submission or comment can really be used to project its fate on reddit and visibility. It's astonishing. Too late and your comment is buried and your vote doesn't matter. And the people who get those first few comments, *especially* in /r/askreddit and other big defaults, are *generally* the more hardcore reddit users who may be a little easier to categorize-- it takes a certain type of person to hit F5 on r/askreddit/new every ten seconds. To address your other point, I think it's okay to generalize about the culture that a particular subreddit encourages. Like adviceanimals or changemyview, which support very different ideals and user conduct and thus attract different users. For smaller special interest subreddits, you can safely generalize about the user base because they are self-selected. But for a place like askreddit. pics, funny, etc. (where most of this generalization is being defined), I don't think that's really fair.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I'm not saying "okay" and "fair" in the sense of offending someone-- rather, I mean objectively reasonable vs. fallacious, invalid, and/or untrue.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Yeah because it's a pedantic strawman that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and is really either a weak diversion attempt or simply you not comprehending what we're really talking about.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: You're just so overconfident in your assumption that I am "doing the same thing I am decrying." I'm not attacking you, I'm *responding* to you and your accusation. I guess when people respond to opposing arguments they are considered "attacks." In that case, why are *you* attacking *me?* Why are you doing the same thing you are decrying? See how easy it is to manipulate language to make tangentially relevant and not at all applicable points that only serve to divert the conversation and appear arrogant?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Well okay. I think I understand what you're trying to tell OP. But you also have to understand that when someone doesn't want to start *talking about talking* and going down the rabbit hole of deconstructing one's own previous choice of words, it's *partly* your own responsibility to make them interested by meeting them half way. OP isn't directly answering your line of questioning because it seems fundamentally irrelevant to the intended topic of discussion. Maybe your questions are relevant, but it is hard to see why. If you can't see why and explain why, then this is a waste of time.

### Human: CMV: I believe the Linux community's over-reliance on the command line, coupled with their attitude of teaching it to newbies, is what is preventing Linux from becoming a popular desktop OS.### Assistant: First off, Ubuntu (and probably many other builds of Linux) is definitely trying to make itself more user-friendly. I've used the last 5 versions, and they've all felt more and more like OS X. The latest version actively hid the terminal away from me, which I rather disliked. The thing is, Windows and OS X are both designed with user safety in mind. They try to prevent users from touching too much on the theory that they'll break things. The whole point of Linux is that it the user has more control. You don't go out and get Linux if you don't want that. And the way to exercise that control is with the terminal. So yes, the command line is a critically important part of the Linux experience.### Human: Fair enough, but so often you see Linux touted as the best alternative to Windows, when in reality it requires a fair bit more finesse to not screw the system up. If it's so often presented as an alternative, then should it not at least attempt to match the user-friendliness of Windows?### Assistant: If all you want is an OS that can run a browser and write documents, Ubuntu will do that in a friendly way. But virtually every computer you can buy comes with OS X or Windows preinstalled, so why would you go to the trouble of downloading and setting up a new OS for that? Otherwise, you're going to want to do other things with it. If you want to do anything more with Linux, you'll need to use the command line. So yes, If you're going to use Linux, you almost certainly need the terminal.### Human: TBH, my biggest problem I've had so far with Linux is installing GPU drivers. It was my intention to see how Ubuntu performed as a gaming platform. None of that should have required a command line (or, at the very least, it doesn't on Windows).### Assistant: Your gripe there is (potentially) with the hardware vendors for not putting out open source drivers for developers of linux to make play nicely.### Human: Idk, the drivers on Ubuntu seem like they've gotten much better recently. I can just add a ppa to my system, and I have good, stable graphics drivers with a minimum of effort. They may be proprietary drivers, but they work, so meh. It would be nice if they were open source, but I'm not a purist. Steam has also put a [lot of effort into making the driver install process very simple](https://support.steampowered.com/kb_cat.php?s=b33dc2d2bd8ee01371315b795619eec7&id=97) for supported OS's - mostly Ubuntu (but you can use the same directions for Mint without issue, afaik). There are still lots of tutorials that are command-line based, but it seems like Steam is really putting some effort into making their resources GUI-based to help people transition.

### Human: IAMA Muslim women who observe hijab (headscarf and modest dress) nearly all the time in public. I feel this is my right, and any country that regulates it (i.e. not allowed in school or in the workplace) is going against the basic rights of women and men. Dare to CMV?### Assistant: For the most part, the government shouldn't be involve in how people dress. But there are some serious straw man issues with some of your points: "By limiting a woman's accsess to public spaces, universities, schools, and so forth you are limiting her right to be educated, her right to government, her right to a fair trial/testify at a trial, and her right to become a good citizen. A citizen in the modern sense is formed by education. Civics is an essence of public schools, and by limiting a woman's entrance to one because of hijab you are now limiting her ability to participate in public life to the point where she cannot become a valuable citizen." No, you are not limiting women's access to any of these with a Hijab ban. A woman can always take the Hijab off. The woman limits her own access. "It interferes with the workplace. Actually, it doesn't. See, hijab is to cover and to act proper.... it isn't wear a extra large black dress with gloves and a scarf to your ankles like this. To some women it is, and then the bussiness does have a right because wearing that next to a machine like a deep fryer is dangerous. But what about, this. What is this going to catch on? The top is lose, tuck it in.. but that would be an issue even if the scarf wasn't present. But what about color? Style? Ask your employer to wear a black scarf or a green scarf, and they'll show up in one the same way they would if all employees wore black or green shirts. This isn't an issue. Oh, she'll be the only one in a scarf and stick out and ruin employee moral? Well, what about that guy with long hair? Or the girl with a buzz cut? Everyone looks slightly differnt!" In the case of private employers, you either agree to the terms of employment or you don't. Besides, many people don't want overt religious displays out of their employees. I sure don't, I've had to have HR intervene twice now in dealing with conflicts between one of my extremely Christian employees who insists on wearing a cross and one of my atheist employees who wears various regalia just to annoy the Christian employee. And the times where I did have uniform requirements, how I cut my hair and groom myself were part of those requirements. "By limiting the observance of hijab you limit one's right to freedom of expression and religion. Not all those who observe hijab are Muslim, quite a few aren't actually! You are saying someone cannot express their viewpoint, that they can't have freedom of speech and religion... this is wrong. This is not harming anyone. It's not like a bunch of knives sticking out of their head... so why do it?" As long as you're cool with other people wearing pictures of the prophet Muhammad depicted in sexual acts with pigs we're on the same page on free speech.### Human: I generally agree with everything you said, except the part where you talk about "straw man." I think the OP has a very legitimate argument in that when certain institutions prohibit hijabs, they are also limiting the hijab wearers. Let's say that all schools require that each and every student must wear a shirt that says "all black people should be slaves." Technically, the school isn't limiting anyone, I mean just wear the thing, after all, it doesn't matter what you think, you're only here to receive an education. But there could be people who, for a variety of reasons, find it unacceptable to wear such a shirt. Since all schools require it, such people are unable to receive a proper education. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.### Assistant: If you take France though, they ban all religious symbolism. They aren't limiting women nor exclusively prohibiting hijabs. Women aren't barred from these institutions.### Human: But majority christian religions don't require the wearing of a symbol. So the effective ban is only on those religions that do -- mostly orthodox jews and orthodox muslims.### Assistant: That shouldn't be the problem of the state. The rules should either apply to everyone or not apply to anyone at all.### Human: Why is that?

### Human: CMV: Companies should split up into smaller ones by law as soon as they reach a certain threshold### Assistant: >The great war of the 21st century is between man and corporations We are only 15 years into the 21st century, how can you make this claim? Without it your argument loses a lot of its foothold.### Human: All right, you do have a point. But this is something that has been brewing from the 20th century itself, and only in this century has been this struggle been so noticeable. What I mean to say is that the next big war won't be between countries, but between man and corporations. And by war, I don't mean a bloody conquest. I mean a boring legal struggle for power and the pursuit for justice.### Assistant: You seem to lack knowledge of the early 20th century. [Anti-trust laws](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law) have been on the books since 1890, which were enacted because of non-competitive business practices that companies were engaged in.### Human: The laws are there, but they aren't powerful enough. Sure, it did lead to Microsoft backing down, but it would be better if companies were to physically split into smaller entities. More innovation, less power. Under current laws, do I see Google not misusing its power, or Comcast not misusing its monopoly? I don't think so.### Assistant: > More innovation, less power Do you have a source that small businesses are more innovative than large ones? Google invests heavily in R&D, especially in really expensive R&D projects, live driverless cars. Expensive, long term R&D projects are the kinds of things that are hard for small businesses to do, because it could take a decade or more of research to be profitable.### Human: Read this: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220558. Basically, smaller companies have the mobility to innovate faster. They need to innovate, to outinnovate the others and survive. Bigger companies need to cater to a large userbase, meaning that they can't afford to innovate. The one point you make is that larger companies have more money to invest in R&D, and that is partly true, but with innovative concepts, smaller companies can get money from investors for R&D. Sure, Google and Facebook invest a lot into R&D, but the point I am making is that these concepts would come into fruition faster if they were separate entities. Let me give you an example: (1) Big Company Division Y wants to add some innovative feature. But before it puts in money into adding that feature, it has to get approval from many executives who will primarily look for financial results. This means it will take time for Division Y to add that feature, and if it drastically changes everything, then the executives won't want that feature even if it is innovative, fearing alienation of their userbase. (2.) Division Y is a separate company, with its own resources Decides to add feature, invests into adding feature and thus has innovated. You can see how smaller companies innovate faster than larger ones now, right?### Assistant: That article is has a solid base of theory but light on any factual data. I was asking if you had a way to quantify the innovation/inventions from various sized companies. But I agree with you when it comes to something like "an innovative feature". Designing a useful new phone app, a web service or device accessory is probably best left to small companies. The cost of entry is low, and small companies can iterate quickly on the possibilities. But when it comes to designing and building something entirely new, something that will take years of sustained effort before a payoff, I don't think that small companies can fulfill this role. Small companies, for example, cannot afford to do the research and development necessary to bring a new drug to market. The amount of front-end costs for something like that are simply too high for a small business to shoulder. Similarly, if you want to do all the work necessary to bring something like a driverless car or a fusion reactor to market, you are going to need lots of time and money. That's where large corporate R&D can be applied and small businesses just can't compete.### Human: I am just taking a shot in the dark, but wouldn't investors cover the money gap? All companies were once small and many started off with something completely new. Apple, Google, everyone. Even AOL. How did they make their first Product, which was innovative? Through investment rounds. They talk to investors, and if their concept is innovative enough, they get the money. And they use it to fund development. Am I missing something?### Assistant: >if their concept is innovative enough, they get the mone Wrong, wrong wrong. They get invested in if the product can be monetized. No one invests simply for innovation, they invest so that they can reap the profit.### Human: I am going to copy paste my comment from this thread: "But, here the smaller companies will have an advantage. See, in a bigger company, these Products have shown their merit and this is why they are splitting off into separate Companies. Meaning that people know these products are successful and lucrative, meaning that investors will trust that future Products from these smaller companies will probably be successful, and so they will invest. We have to remember that we are not talking about small companies starting from scratch, and are talking about successful Products part of a large company evolving into a smaller Company."### Assistant: Why would any company try and innovate if their successful products have to be spun off into other companies? It wouldn't benefit the parent company AT ALL.### Human: We have to remember that a large company is basically multiple little companies held together under the umbrella of the larger company. So they will innovate in order to cultivate a userbase for these divisions, and they will want to split off because the smaller companies will be able to innovate faster. It isn't a matter of a larger company not wanting to innovate. It is a matter of a group of people higher up not wanting to innovate because it won't benefit them. If they decide that, the company will sink, and they don't want this and so they will continue to innovate. The executives higher up will be transferred to smaller companies based on their specializations, and bam, everyone benefits.### Assistant: >a Product can get killed when it is a part of a large bloated company simply due to financial interests. How could you possibly accomplish this? By law? What's to stop the parent company from just reassigning their top people somewhere else to save them?

### Human: CMV: There are only 2 genders. Transgender is ok because the person is merely switching between the two, but there are not more than 2 genders.### Assistant: If you use the common definition of the word "gender" as being a social construct/identity label statistically derived from sex then by definition there can be infinite number of genders. I can start saying my gender is "red" tomorrow and you have no basis to dispute it because it is by definition what I say it is.### Human: that is not the definition of gender. It is: the state of being male or female.### Assistant: That's not the normal definition though. I mean, if that's your definition then your CMV becomes very different. Then it's impossible to change your view because it's axiomatically true. In that case the CMV seems dishonest quite frankly.### Human: That is the dictionary definition. It is 100% the normal definition. Obviously some people feel differently, and I want to feel differently but do not try and claim that isnt the definition haha### Assistant: Hmm. So it is. Well then you shouldn't change your mind :P But note that those who talk about gender fluid etc use another definition so you need to start there. If you try to debate without first having common words you'll just become frustrated and make enemies for no reason.

### Human: CMV: California is the most important state in the US.### Assistant: Most other states have water. Water is very important.### Human: California uses water from within its borders.### Assistant: And a lot more from the Colorado river...### Human: That's completely untrue. The Colorado River provides about half of the water for the region of California south of the Mojave. It doesn't even reach the Central Valley. California supplies almost all of its own water.### Assistant: My apologies, I meant Colorado state.### Human: That's still not true. The large majority of California's water comes from California. 2/3rds comes from North of Sacramento where the Cascade Range is. We also have the Coastal Range, Sierra Nevada Range, Klamath Mountains, Peninsular Range, and Transverse Range. California is mountainous as fuck, and mountains = water supply. Before humans came to California and started putting up levies and canals to drain the Central Valley, it turned into an *inland sea* every year when the snowpacks melted. A state that, in its natural state, is under water for much of the year is not a water poor state. People look at cities like San Diego and Los Angeles that have been built in the desert and rely on imported water and think all of California is like that, but in reality those regions like the Mojave Desert are only a small portion of the state. edit: just re-read your comment, were you saying that Colorado state relies on the Colorado river for most of its water? I'm not as familiar with Colorado as I am with California but that seems unlikely considering how many other sources of water there are in the region.

### Human: CMV: The next four years of Trump and a large Republican Majority are going to be awful### Assistant: >1) America will pull out of the Climate Change Pact So far there have only been two kinds of climate change proposals: 1) Purely symbolic moves that are easy, but meaningless. 2) Utterly insane proposals that will destroy the worldwide economy and result in hundreds of millions of deaths. For instance Bill McKibben with 350.org proposed eliminating 95% of fossil fuel use world wide. That's well below the amount needed just for food production and transportation. It's a sure fire way to cause famine in Africa, Asia, and South America. Fossil fuel free fertilizer, tractors, cargo ships, and trucks simply don't exist, and they aren't on the horizon either.### Human: Just because we currently have two proposals that are bad doesn't mean we should just be okay with someone who won't do anything at all.### Assistant: Until we have a decent one on the table, with a solid well resourced pros and cons list, we should do nothing.### Human: Yes but from what Trump has said that he doesn't thinks it is real so if a good option does come up he may not take it.### Assistant: I think the odds of that happening are so low for the next 20 years that it isn't something anyone should worry about.