Datasets:

Siddish

/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

like 0

### Human: NSFW: I dont think porn is harmful to self or society. CMV### Assistant: > I totally disagree with those notions. I think people are altered by porn the same way people are altered by watching die hard or the matrix. Its entertainment, not reality. It's a little different. I think that when you say people aren't altered by Die Hard or the Matrix, you're arguing that there isn't some obvious "I watched Die Hard, now I want to go on a murderous rampage" effect. Fine - I take that as a given, but that's the dumbest, easiest argument. But - let's say you were in some sort of firefight... do you think you might subconsciously try to hold a gun the way a hero in a movie holds a gun? You might have conceptions about how much recoil to expect that are based on the entertainment you've consumed? Ideas about how easy or difficult it is to aim a gun? Ideas about tactics or strategy in a firefight? I'd argue that these more subtle aspects of *how these situations play out* or *how I should / would react in these situations* are affected by entertainment. That's the type of effect people expect when they say porn subconsciously alters your view on sexuality. The big, dumb, easy argument is that men who watch porn will go on raping rampages, and it's just as off the mark as the idea that people will go on murder rampages because they watch Die Hard. But the idea that we might absorb ideas about - this is what sex should look like, this is what the respective roles while having sex should look like, this is how my body is supposed to move . . . I think it's hard to argue that those things definitely aren't affected by consuming porn.### Human: Well, personally i think porn is very fake. Most of the positions, screams and faces are fake. People don't scream like that and the positions are made as to show the viewer the good stuff. Unless you totally missed sex ed class and "the talk" and didn't do any research with an authority or internet you would have some idea of how sex works in reality. People are curious about sex, im pretty sure if you're brain isn't made of wood you would take the time to learn sex from somewhere else then a professional business trying to make money from you. Does anyone here seriously have stories where they had to deal with a partner doing things just like in a porno?? EDIT: Again im starting to think lack of good sex ed classes is the problem, rather then porn. I know ever since i was 15 i never let porn decide how i view real sex.### Assistant: Do you think that men today are more likely than they were 30 years ago to engage or attempt to engage in things like choking, spanking, hair-pulling, or anal sex?### Human: Yes, most likely, but again some people like anal today. Im pretty sure that all of those things are fine if you have consent from your partner. Im aware that anal can be painful if not done right, sex ed classes that teach people to do research and be open to sexuality is important. If people do learn those things, hair grabbing, spanking, anal and choking can be fine. As long as both sides are in on it.### Assistant: Regardless of whether they are good or bad, do you think they are more common now?### Human: Yes.### Assistant: Do you think the fact that they are more common now may be partially attributable to the fact that people see these acts performed regularly in pornography in a way that wasn't true 30 years ago?### Human: Yes, but i really don't think they do it the same way as done in the porno, at least not in a negative way. Maybe kinky shit is more usual, but again none of that is a problem as long as both partners are consenting. Yes, some acts have changed in bed, but again a relationship involving sex can resort to experimentation so porn being a part of that is a natural thing to happen. It doesn't make anyone use porn as a guide for their first time.### Assistant: Ok, but all I was focusing on here was changing part of your view. You said this: > I hear from different people in real life and the internet, that "porn subconsciously alters your view on sexuality" and that "porn leads to unreal expectations of sexual performance and looks". > I totally disagree with those notions. I think people are altered by porn the same way people are altered by watching die hard or the matrix. Its entertainment, not reality. I think it's pretty clear that porn has actually changed our views on sexuality, what we think sex looks like, and what we expect of sex. I wasn't taking a position (yet) on whether those changes are for better or worse, simply that there *has* been a change because of porn. The entertainment *does* affect the reality.### Human: Society in general has changed a ton. I would be careful saying one thing in particular caused that much difference in sexuality.### Assistant: I said two posts above "partially attributable." And I think that's accurate.### Human: does this tie in to the original sentiment? is a rise in the prevalence of consentual choking/spanking/anal/etc harmful to society?### Assistant: I was focusing on changing the part of his view that entertainment does not affect reality before getting into whether it was harmful. It seems obvious to me that entertainment affects reality - the harm part is a harder and more complicated question that I'm not even 100% sure about, so I figured I'd start with the easy part :)### Human: i thought that was your plan, i just didn't see how you were gonna manage to tie it into quantifiable "harm".### Assistant: As the rules state, you only have to challenge on aspect of the OP's view. I chose to challenge the part of the view that porn has no effect on the reality of sexuality in America, and leave the rest to others because it's something I'm less well-versed in, and didn't have infinite time. Plus, the OP left the thread after a while.### Human: ah, fair enough.

### Human: CMV: When dating, it is a waste of time to try to win someone over. If you have to win them over now, you run the risk of losing them later.### Assistant: >I am having to compete for your attention, and if I have to compete now, I'm going to have to later. After my first date with my wife I thought "that was fun enough but I'm not really interested." A week or two later something snapped and suddenly I realized that she was all I wanted and we started going out. In the meantime, she was really into me and kept coming up with subtle ways for us to interact and hang out. The same sort of thing happened to one of my best friends. His wife flirted with him a long time without much response. The night she decided to give up he suddenly thought "what the heck, maybe I'll see where this goes." Turns out he fell in love with her. Now, I don't think that this is quite what you mean, and I agree that a relationship based on putting on a show is off to a bad start, but I think it's good to remember that even relationships between mutually compatible people take effort to start. My relationship with my wife has been the easiest thing in the world, but if she hadn't kept up her effort those two weeks that I wasn't interested we might not have ever started.### Human: As someone else said, these are more instances of minds changing, not necessarily winning someone over. It's definitely a position that is giving me a lot of thought though. Thanks for replying!### Assistant: Wait. So you're saying there's a difference between the idea of someone changing their mind about someone and someone's attraction to someone changing? I disagree with that. I think attraction to someone is a type of understanding of the person, based on whatever factors are relevant to you. To me, that seems like a type of opinion. I think you could list off the reasons why you are attracted to someone, if you were motivated, and that list could possibly be 100% what makes you attracted to someone, give or take a few superficial bits. I think that you're concluding that a given person shouldn't have to change a potential date's opinion of them, because if the potential date is judging you on factors that you can't or are unwilling to change, then you're going to have trouble down the line anyway, because there's not enough in common for the couple to foster a "real" attraction. Couple things: 1) Changing someone's opinion of you might just be a matter of introducing factors that positively affect their view of you. It might just be a matter of getting to know each other better. 2) I doubt that the relevant factors for every potential date are going to be unchangeable for every person they're willing to date. Maybe you'd be willing to change some things about yourself that will make you more attractive (discounting superficial factors that wouldn't provide a real, loving compatibility). That might be a waste of time for you, but hey, whatever floats your boat might sink mine. 3) I get the idea that you think there are basic, ineffable factors that just must be fulfilled for a real attraction to ever surface between a couple, and that these factors can't be changed, probably because they're some sort of essential characteristics that are tied deeply to who you really, really are. I can't really challenge you on this point, because it'll come down to two things: whether you think people can change (or, if *enough* of them can change to make them attractive to someone who wasn't attracted to them previously) and whether you think attraction is a determinable thing. I'm a yes on both points, for the record. My final opinion is that the possibility for attraction can exist where attraction itself doesn't, and sometimes it can take a little finagling to bring that possibility to realization. I don't think anyone can say that's not worth the trouble every time.### Human: > Wait. So you're saying there's a difference between the idea of someone changing their mind about someone and someone's attraction to someone changing? It's about how their mind is changed. One is more passive, whereas the other is actively selling yourself to them.### Assistant: Oh, so it's the rate at which it happens? Or is it that they come to the conclusion on their own? Either way, you're still going to be the reason why they think of you at all. Does it really matter if they figure out why they should change their mind about you on their own, instead of you prompting the change?### Human: "I think that it's the difference between "I like you" and "I like you when you're trying to convince me to like you". It's like putting on a show; what happens when they see backstage?### Assistant: But when does "I like you because you're making an effort, but I don't know you very well" become "I like you when you're trying to convince me to like you?" Edit: and that's only one of my points. People change. People get off drugs and get on them. People almost die. People discover that they are in conflict with who they are or who they want to be, and they change big and/or little things about themselves to resolve the dissonance. It's not absurd to think that someone could change how they feel about you because you changed, and it's ridiculous to damn all such incidents as a sort of pandering.### Human: I might be mistaken, but I think OP is questioning the 'mating dances' themselves. Such as a person actively changing their behavior or suppressing bad traits when, in a causal setting, it wouldn't be likely to happen. Sort of like putting forward a false personality and then building a relationship on false pretenses.### Assistant: Right, well that's what I'm talking about, so read what I wrote and address that if you'd like.

### Human: CMV: Holding gun manufacturers liable for shootings doesn't make sense.### Assistant: I guess I would say it probably has to do with whether the manufacturers did anything to encourage that misuse or not. Do you have some kind of like to whatever bill you're talking about? I could probably find half a dozen such examples, and it would be nice to know what you're *actually* talking about before spending a lot of time on it.### Human: Seems like Bernie has changed his position. This article discusses both the bill and the criticism. http://time.com/4183716/bernie-sanders-gun-manufacturer-immunity/ I'm trying to find the bill itself to have a read, but the basic question is the same regardless: should you be able to sue a gun manufacturer if their gun is used in a mass shooting, and if so, on what theory? This question assumes that the gun left the manufacturer's control and made it to a store or other legitimate distributor before finding its way into "the wrong hands." edit: The bill in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903### Assistant: Like you said in your OP, what would be the precedent for suing gun manufacturers for the unlawful use of their products? It really seems nonsensical. Which leads to the question: why propose such a law in the first place?### Human: Wouldn't the tobacco industry lawsuits be a fairly comparable situation? In the case of tobacco, federal and state governments claimed cigarette manufacturers should be held liable for death and industry caused by their products working as intended. However, cigarettes were not outlawed. (I don't think the legality of how they were used should or would have any bearing on that argument.) A similar suit against gun manufacturers would probably use the same types of arguments: * Guns are unreasonably dangerous, even when functioning as designed; * Guns cause many unintended deaths; * The gun industry has acted negligently; and * Even though manufacturers knew about the dangers of selling guns, they misled or intentionally concealed information from consumers about the impact of guns on their health. Of these arguments, I suppose that the fourth might be the trickiest---since the danger of guns to others (as opposed to the user) is an abstraction. Still, I could see an argument being made that gun manufacturers are aware that many people purchase guns to harm other people and/or commit crimes, and that failing to acknowledge and control that market amounted to public deception. Proof, of course, is something else.### Assistant: > control that market But how would the manufacturer even being to do that? The manufacturer isn't the one selling the gun, they never see the buyer. Requiring them to in some way prevent criminals from obtaining their product in an impossibility as far as I can see.

### Human: CMV: I grade assignments, if I can't easily read your writing and find your answer, you shouldn't get credit.### Assistant: I can see the professor's point though, this is Engineering and not an English class. So he wants to grade on content rather than how pretty it looks which makes complete sense. I work in a professional environment with a bunch of engineers and we have collectively the handwriting ability of toddlers...but that's what MS Office is for. And yet, communication isn't a problem. So it's kinda hard to argue that "the core of engineering is communicating" and that they're going to have a hard time in the real world when bad handwriting simply is not an issue. However I will agree that there comes a point where they're handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you can't make heads or tails of what you're actually looking at then no credit should be given. Give them a warning to do assignments legibly and at least give them a chance to explain their work in front of you so they get credit the first time. After that if they chose not to make their work a bit legible then I wouldn't feel bad docking points off since you can't read anything.### Human: I kind of think that since it is an engineering class it may be even more important. After all, I would like the builders making my.home or office to be able to read the instructions given...### Assistant: Those instructions aren't handwritten. If they were I think there are bigger problems afoot.### Human: ∆ Sorry I did not realise that I forgot to award you a CMV in my other comment. You changed my view on this by clarifying that instructions that do have an impact on safety and risk are not hand written. Which was a complete misconception on my part. Thank you!### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TimeTravellerSmith. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TimeTravellerSmith)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

### Human: CMV: Banksy isn't doing anything profound or deep. He is doing art that is cliche and requires almost no thought to understand.### Assistant: Why does art need to be profound or deep to be appreciated? His art and publicity, combined with the mystery of his anonymity has combined to bring graffiti into the mainstream art world. He's not the first, or even the best, but he's the most well known at what he does. If he was too counterculture, it wouldn't have caught on like it did.### Human: OP's argument wasn't that his pieces shouldn't be appreciated or that they aren't art, his view was that he isn't doing anything profound or deep.### Assistant: I'd grant that Banksy's stuff isn't particularly deep or profound. It is incredibly succinct and pointed though and artistically impressive as well. I find the lack of subtlety to be appropriate really. It has to capture the eye quickly after all.### Human: If you grant that Banksy's stuff isn't particularly deep or profound then how are you changing OP's view?### Assistant: *Pigs cant fly, CMV.* sometimes, because youre agreeing with aspects of a post, you can try to get OP to see from another angle to open his mind.

### Human: CMV: I believe that a child raised in a same sex marriage will have distorted views on sexuality & family values.### Assistant: What are the basic family values you're talking about?### Human: The instinctive caring (female) mother and bread winning (male) father. This has been a family value for many centuries.### Assistant: Sociologists call the roles you're talking about "expressive" (caring, cooking, cleaning and other household duties) and "instrumental" (bread winning and in dangerous societies fighting and protecting). As you pointed out, for hundreds of years in the west men have traditionally held instrumental roles and women have held the expressive ones. It hasn't been this way for the whole of human history and it isn't universal to all cultures, so it can't really be said that this is somehow part of human nature. So we can see that the expressive and instrumental roles are not intrinsically linked to either gender. Think about your typical camp gay guy who loves to cook, or the way women took over industrial roles in WW1. I agree that a healthy child should have expressive role models as well as instrumental ones. I think that really the best parents both perform each role from time to time. And there's nothing stopping, for example, two female parents from imparting instrumental values like the importance of supporting your family or how to stand up for yourself. After all, men don't learn that from their genes, they learn it (traditionally) from their fathers. TL;DR: Your gender isn't the source of your values, your family are and the things we think of as "manly" or "womanly" are societal constructs. That means that there's nothing stopping good parents of any gender teaching their kids all the values they need to be healthy :)### Human: ∆: After reading this comment, I have a greater understanding of parental roles played in a family (irregardless of gender). I also understand that values are taught, not inherited.### Assistant: I'm not saying this to be mean, but "irregardless" isn't a word. You just want to use "regardless".### Human: I guess it could be a word, but logically it would mean the same as regardful or relevantly.

### Human: CMV: I am racist against Gypsies### Assistant: Since others have tried and failed to c your v so far, what do you think would change your view? Would it help you if I showed you that Gypsies have been discriminated against for centuries? Or that perhaps [70-80% of their population in Europe were wiped out](http://www.iises.net/download/Soubory/IJOSS/V4N1/pp62-70_ijossV4N1.pdf) under the Nazis? As far as I know, they were never supported in the same way that other marginalized groups were during that time. All this breeds a culture of distrust. [They don't trust European governments and vice-versa](https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8hgWBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA237&dq=gypsy+europe+crime&ots=ofS6bD_bU2&sig=r6MOnibfl55n7ggcTXAXKwavDDU#v=onepage&q=gypsy%20europe%20crime&f=false). And how could they? There have been too many cases of mob violence against them and no action taken against the attackers in many countries. They have been marginalized in the economies of many European countries for centuries, denied equal rights to employment based on nothing more than stereotype. Then when they turn to petty theft to survive it only reinforces the prejudices that society holds against them. At the same time, their history in Europe is over 1000 years old - almost all of it spent in the margins, and often under persecution. They *belong* there since they've made Europe their home for so long, which is fair to say. But they're not completely innocent either. They need to take steps to assimilate better than they have in the past or they will keep being marginalized. Edit: clarity.### Human: What would change my mind? I think both real life experiences with people grown in Gypsy culture and a compelling argument could make the difference. I already noted my arguments sound like an average racist that could be applied to any race, but I still have trouble associating both variables because Gypsies really seem like the exception to me### Assistant: > I think both real life experiences with people grown in Gypsy culture and a compelling argument could make the difference. This is a Catch-22 isn't it? Your previous experiences with Gypsies mean that you're less likely to seek out positive relationships in the future. So the solution to your problem is also, ironically, Catch-22. You have to get over your prejudice in order to get over your prejudice. > I still have trouble associating both variables because Gypsies really seem like the exception to me They are an exception in many ways. Please read the two resources I provided in my first comment when you have some time. It's amazing how thoroughly they were discriminated against, beaten, persecuted, and killed. Some of it was genocidal. And while the people of the world sympathized with those who fared the worst, the Gypsies were not given the same attention or opportunities to rebuild or assimilate. Edit: It looks like /u/Riddle0219 has abandoned the post.### Human: Out of interest, how does the extent of persecution that gypsy communities have faced compare with that of other persecuted groups, such as jews?### Assistant: > how does the extent of persecution that gypsy communities have faced compare with that of other persecuted groups, such as jews? Honest answer: There's no way I have the knowledge required to give a good answer to that question. What I did learn from my research was that Gypsies have faced discrimination for centuries, though I'd thought that it was a recent phenomenon. I also wasn't aware of the scale of the Nazi's cruelty towards them. The two links I provided in my first comment do a pretty good job of covering the basics. You could try /r/AskHistorians - they're good with these questions.### Human: Thank you :)

### Human: I believe there was nothing wrong with the Empire from Star Wars and I resent the Rebels from destroying it. CMV.### Assistant: I'll let Han Solo handle this one. >That's not what The Empire would have done, Commander. What the Empire would have done was build a super-colossal Yuuzhan Vong-killing battle machine. They would have called it the Nova Colossus or the Galaxy Destructor or the Nostril of Palpatine or something equally grandiose. They would have spent billions of credits, employed thousands of contractors and subcontractors, and equipped it with the latest in death-dealing technology. And you know what would have happened? It wouldn't have worked. They'd forget to bolt down a metal plate over an access hatch leading to the main reactors, or some other mistake, and a hotshot enemy pilot would drop a bomb down there and blow the whole thing up. Now that's what the Empire would have done.### Human: If Han Solo can't CYV it's hopeless!### Assistant: Then we should just blow this thing and go home.### Human: Erm... About that death star... Seriously though if this boils down to size of a monumental government being inherently inefficient to the point of even their most important military installation having a critical flaw, then couldn't the same be said of the Yuuzhan Vong?### Assistant: Not sure we can assume the Yuuzhan Vong is centrally controlled by an inefficient government.### Human: It is though. Read their wookipedia page if you don't believe me.### Assistant: Han Solo isn't talking about an inevetiable conflict between two large entities.. Its a large entity being undermind by a single individual. The Yuuzhan Vong are just an example of a population that would be filled with motivated individuals to accomplish the goal. It could have been an individual within the empire as well. Like a citizen of Tatoine who gets pissed off at the empire and decides to rebel.### Human: in walks manning, snowden, assange, oops wrong page.

### Human: People cheering on Bitcoin's "success" don't understand how currency works. CMV### Assistant: > Currency is meant to be a medium of exchange-- not an investment. Ideally, it should lose value at a slow and steady rate so as to discourage people from holding on to it for too long. When currency gains value, it encourages people to hoard their currency, which is terrible for the economy. As an economics student, everything you say here has been verified by what I have learned. I have no intention of disagreeing with you here. However, I believe that, at this point in time, the hyper-deflation of BTC we have seen over the last year is a very good sign. We know that the supply of BTC is relatively fixed - and this is completely intentional. The global supply of BTC is computer generated - not printed by a sovereign mint. If the supply was not fixed there would be nobody to control it. The entire purpose of BTC is to experiment with a completely non-sovereign currency; that is a currency which is not tied to any one state which exerts monetary and fiscal policy to control or guide the currency. Following this understanding, the only two reasons BTC should be deflating. The first is due to speculation of future returns (i.e. looking at BTC as an investment opportunity, not a currency) which is not ideal for a currency but already occurs with most of the major national currencies which already exist (plenty of examples if you search for US dollar speculation or Euro speculation). The second is because there is an increasing demand for BTC to use as a currency. Both situations represent increases in demand for a product (I know this isn't the correct term but it is helpful to frame it in this way) with a fixed supply, which results in an increase in the product's value. But the second situation - that is, more people want to buy BTC to use it for currency - is fantastic. This means that more people globally are buying into the concept of BTC as a valid means of exchange and they are willing to sell their own currency to do so (buy buying BTC they are selling $US for example). The entire concept of Bitcoin has only been around for 6 years. It is only to be expected that the relative volatility of this currency will be high as it is phased into more widespread use. But at this point, hyper-deflation is a sign that more and more people are beginning to accept BTC as a viable alternative to their country's currency. The expectation being that as more businesses begin to accept payment in the form of BTC there will be downward pressure on BTC as it circulates through the monetary system faster. By no means does this hyper-deflation signal that a central banker should seize control of the supply of BTC and attempt to regulate it. Bitcoin was theorized and designed to be a decentralized currency. To now install some form of central governing authority for Bitcoin would undermine the entire point of the Bitcoin "experiment" so to speak.### Human: ∆ Well put. I also shared the op's view but this has forced me to think about it a bit more.### Assistant: This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/wantsomepie changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]### Human: Damn you DeltaBot! Fine, have it your way...### Assistant: You should totally edit it and give me that delta ;)

### Human: I think most volunteer trips are money makers for rich white people to have photo ops and feel good about themselves- CMV### Assistant: It is like education. Some will go to class to get a grade and a piece of paper that says I took the class. Others will actually learn. What you are noticing is the difference from those who are willing to engage themselves and those who are along for the ride and want to continue living in their bubble.### Human: There is a difference between learning and volunteering. Generally even with the best of intentions it is impossible for a 'volunteer' to make a positive and meaningful change in one month even if they did have high level skills (which a university student will lack) That said it is certainly possible for a 'volunteer' to come back having learned valuable things about the country they go to. But they shouldn't delude themselves into thinking they are there to help - they are there to learn.### Assistant: It is pretty ignorant to say that one person can't make a positive and meaningful change in the lives of the people they are trying to help. Just because you don't necessarily hear about students revolutionizing life for the less fortunate on the 6 o'clock news does not at all mean they did not have a positive impact. Simply showing someone that you care about them and recognize their humanity is so important, you're really understating the roll of volunteers. That's not to say that every single person will make a solitary difference, but that's the point. It's a combined effort, a real and physical demonstration that there are people in the world who are not afraid to share a table with the most dehumanized members of the global society.### Human: It is not ignorant at all to say that an unskilled person will essentially never make positive and meaningful change in anything over a one month period in a place far from their home, it's basic common sense. There is actually one way that voluntourism benefits the local community and that is the same way tourism benefits the local community - by providing jobs and transferring a few dollars from the rich world to the poor.### Assistant: Sorry, but I think you're mistaken when you say it's impossible for an unskilled person to make a difference in a month. Last summer, I worked for an organization that brings groups of American and Canadian volunteers down to Baja California, Mexico, to build houses. The groups are only there for a week, and and houses we build are pretty small and basic, but they have a tremendous impact. [This is a picture of part of the neighborhood in which we build most of our houses, called "Plan Libertador."](http://i.imgur.com/10sseL9.jpg) It's all very hilly like that, and as you can see, there's not much grass in the dry season. This picture is actually of one of the more developed sections of Plan; what you can't see from it are the houses with dirt floors and tarp or pallet roofs. Every winter, as the rains start, you see newspaper stories of babies dying from cold and rain because their houses weren't weatherproof, and they had rain falling on their heads and a river running over the floor. The houses we build are very simple: two small rooms in an approximately 11.5' x 22' house. However, they have properly shingled roofs, stucco walls, concrete floors, and a door that locks. To someone who is trying to raise their children in a shack made from tarps and pallets, this is a huge blessing that takes quite a bit of weight off their shoulders, and I've seen the results Can one untrained person change the world in a month? Probably not. But one untrained person can change the world of the people they help.### Human: You know what you are saying is fair enough. I definitely do acknowledge that it's not impossible for unskilled people to do something worthwhile with a little training and some supervision. I just think voluntourism is a very inefficient way to make a difference and only exists for the sake of providing college kids with an interesting and unique experience. If your primary interest was helping make the world a better place you could do it far more efficiently and effectively by either helping out in your local community (this saving the cost of the expensive plane ticket and also letting you participate for longer than a week) or you could donate to a program that employed Mexican people directly to build these houses, shipping in materials and skilled craftsmen from wherever necessary - ideally somewhere a whole lot closer than Canada. Even if this neighbourhood is the area most needing of help and the area where you want to make a difference you aren't bringing anything that isn't already there. You don't have any skills worth flying you in, anyone can nail down a shingle. It is worth it from a 'this will be cool and look good on my C/V' perspective though. And maybe you wouldn't contribute at all if you didn't have this opportunity? So in that sense it may be valuable.

### Human: CMV: Muslim immigrants are destroying every society that takes them in large numbers### Assistant: Let me tell you about the immigration crisis in my country, Bangladesh. We are a muslim country, who are very poor, impoverished and stubborn about our way of life. When muslim rohingya were being persecuted in Burma, they tried to flee to our country for safety. You know what we did? We sent them back to their death. I still can't fathom how we could be so inhuman but whenever the topic comes up I ask people why did we turn our back to humanity. I'm no muslim but my friends who are muslim, I wonder how they could turn their backs on muslim brothers. So this is the answer I got. The Rohingyas are thieves, they are robbers, they will cause chaos, they are not Bengali, they don't share our culture. Now here is the irony of it all. Bangladesh is a country where crime is rampant, we have thieves, robbers, rapists everywhere. Yet, when we started differentiating between Rohingyas and us, we forgot that we were just as guilty of these crimes. At that moment, it was fine if a Bengali raped someone but if a Rohingya raped someone we would scream at how deplorable beings these people are. Can you see where I am going with this? No, I'm not trying to say we are all evil, that is not the point. But, we were so adamant on keeping Rohingyas out of our country we picked the smallest faults they had and multiplied it ten times. We didn't look for the Rohingya who did good. He just doesn't fit the rhetoric. Our hate was so intense, that we found every single caveat to keep them out of our country. The truth is, we never cared whether the Rohingyas were good or bad, all we cared about was that we want to keep them out. So we soaked in every bit of information defaming Rohingyas and started making an excuse for why we as a nation are cowards who are too afraid of sharing the same space with an outsider. At the end, it was just that, Xenophobia. Muslims are people, at the end of the day, what drives all people whether Muslims, Christians, or Hindu is our will to survive. Culture really is secondary. When push comes to shove, they learn to adapt. In Bangladesh, you could run a sweatshop if you wanted but if you go to America you must follow their laws and at the end of they day, they do follow. Muslims in Australia aren't living that different a life than you think. You'll meet them in your job, school, bars. Some will be pleasant, some not so pleasant. But if you wanna pick a flaw you can easily do that. Maybe next time when you meet a muslim, who is as Aussie as Kangaroos, you will forget him entirely but the bearded loudmouth on a busy street will still be in your mind cause you chose to be that way.### Human: Thank you for this comment. I doubt it will change much but its reason in a debate governed by anything but. Having fled from a Muslim country myself i often find myself forced to defend it and the evil that is "Muslim culture" (whatever that even means) since it per definition includes me and my family. When in reality, we are not really any different than the rest of you.### Assistant: Here are some key questions to determine if you're not really different from the "rest of us": Is Sharia Law desireable? Should the punishment for apostasy be death? Should people be punished for insulting the prophet Muhammad? Is suicide bombing civilians ever justified? Should women be covered and always obey their husbands? If you can unequivocally answer no to all these questions, and think that most members of your community would agree, then you are sufficiently integrated, and your version of "Muslim culture" is not the issue at hand. If you have any doubts about your answers to these questions, then this is what we (westerners) are worried about.### Human: I have lived here in denmark for 25 years. I have just as big a chance of being a victim of terrorism as the next guy. Until i tell you my name you might even think im a native and your questions would not even be prompted. Obviously its no to all the questions. I have never met anyone who would agree to shit like that. Given that i know (and am related) to many muslims i feel like this "worry" you talk about is unjustified. THAT is what my comment was about. Like the previous comment: Some people are fucked up, yes. I can't change that nor will you get rid of these people if you kick me and my family out of the country. What you are talking about is fanaticism. Just because you are from a country where the majority is of people are muslim doesn't make the people from that region fanatical maniacs.### Assistant: The fact is, these questions are not agreed upon by a huge number of your co-religionists. Hundreds of millions of Muslims agree the punishment for apostasy should be death. Hundreds of millions. Clearly, you're fully integrated with western society, and the version of Islam you subscribe to does not condone these things. But you're at best ignorant and at worst dishonest if you're going claim that these concerns are unjustified. If these ideas are 'fanaticism', then huge numbers of Muslims are 'fanatics'. And I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advocating kicking you and your family out of the country. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/### Human: What makes you think i ascribe to islam at all? ED: yeah that was a bit passive aggressive. My religion has nothing to do with wether i am perceived as a muslim or not, and being regarded negatively in light of this made me add the "kicking out part". Dont see it as too far fetched honestly. You talk about integration as a cause for me not wanting to kill civilians? I mean really? So to rephrase that: The only reason i would not want to condone suicide bombers is because some "white folk magic" rubbed off on me? Or do you mean something else because i hope you can see the insanity of talking about integration in this sense? Alternatively you could argue that my "version" of this so called culture is different. But again, you are putting up some straw man of muslims in general and even your link shows many regional differences. Lots of things wrong and right with the link you sent. too much work to go through all of if, ill simply state: As it shows conceptions of islam are not static and depend on who you ask. Most Muslims have never read the quran. They just attribute it with "being good" or whatever. So any hardcore theological scrutiny is not really useful when trying to make a statement about ordinary people. Regarding the notion of being ignorant: No. You and i are just talking about two very different things. I am well aware of fanatics and as any sane person would prefer to avoid them. But conflating all of us with them on the basis of our ethnicity is just not right.### Assistant: If you're not then I misinterpreted your original comment. I thought you were saying that it was absurd that you should have to face criticism of the "Muslim culture" you come from.

### Human: CMV: I think abortion is an acceptable choice, and I think it's ridiculous that it's looked down upon.### Assistant: While I am pro-choice, I view abortion as a necessary evil. Look, there's no serious debate whether killing a healthy fetus at 8.9 months would be murder - it would be. On the other hand, a fertilized egg isn't human to me - it's a potential human, just like the egg and sperm are the second before fertilization. But we need to draw a line somewhere. Your "fully formed" doesn't cut it Depending on how you define "fully formed", abortion can be legal at 17 years of age, or illegal at 3 months. The idea of viability is at least logical. The age at which the baby can survive independent of the mother works both practically (the mother should have had a fair amount of time at that point) and morally (the mother isn't forced to carry and create a child that she doesn't want). But of the several women I know who have had abortions, it's not that they were shamed, it's that they knew that they were ending the life of what would have been their child. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances, but it took a toll on them. To look at it another way, I know a number of people who have miscarried around 3-4 months. They mourned the loss of their child, even though it wasn't fully formed. This is serious, literally life-and-death stuff. There is nothing ridiculous about being anti-abortion - it's an extremely valid viewpoint, even without religion.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: He means outside of the mother's body, not independent of care. An 18 month old can survive in the care of multiple people, but a 6 month fetus cannot survive outside of its mother's womb.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Not without severe medical intervention.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: People, not machines that simulate the mother's womb. A full-term baby (assuming there are no complications) don't need any of that.### Human: I know several teenagers and adults who would not survive without the care of multiple people, and they are indeed fully formed.### Assistant: Nice straw man. I am referring only to three month premature infants. When I say 'survive' I mean the ability of the child's body to function without outside assistance (this does not include feeding, or other care the child depends on from an adult).### Human: The justification for terminating a 6 month old outside of the womb and a 6 month fetus are the same. At 6 months they hardly have an identity of their own. Sure they see and feel pain but they aren't really fully people. Not to mention they still require feeding and time from the mother. The same argument for terminating a fetus is that "I shouldn't have to give a kidney for someone else to live. I don't have to sacrifice my body for the fetus.". That argument is equally valid for a 6-month old.

### Human: CMV: Calling people privileged is basic Ad Hominem that is being stretched more and more to avoid arguing ideas on their merits.### Assistant: You are right that privilege can be used to silence debate and invalidate an opinion. But you are wrong in saying there is no merit in using the term in the first place. If I say "Black lives matter" and you say "Cops lives matter" and I say "Check your privilege!", then what I'm really saying is "Some people, due to who they are, have invalid opinions in this debate. That is an invalid use of #checkyourprivilege. If I say "The police are profiling and brutalizing blacks!" and you say "If you just follow orders, cops are bros..." THEN privilege is what's really at issue and is relevant: your experience with the police is different than mine, because of who you are. What I'm saying in such an instance is that we are treated differently BECAUSE of who we each are, and that is what has come to be termed "privilege". When used in that context, it is not being used to shut you up, so much as to explain why you might think cops are bros, and I might think cops are hostile and discriminatory. Totally fair, EVEN if you disagree that such a thing as white privilege actually exists (which is, of course, a form of white privilege hahaha).### Human: Your own personal experience is not really valid either way without evidence to back it up. There is lots of evidence piling up about the way Police are handling minorities in the United States and it is real problem. If a person of colour has a bad experience with cops in Finland and says "The police are profiling and brutalizing blacks!" and you say "If you just follow orders, cops are bros..." but the evidence points to Cops in Finland being far more reasonable then you go with the evidence. I don't think privilege doesn't exist, more like I don't think privilege should be assumed.### Assistant: Well, some people's opinions are going to be more informed though, right? Who knows more about what it's like on the moon: you or Neil Armstrong? That, combined with data, evidence, etc., is compelling. So when Neil Armstrong tells you "There's less gravity on the moon", AND we know that the moon has roughly 1/4 Earth's mass and that less mass=less gravity, he's made a multi-leveled, compelling argument. In the same way, when Neil Degrasse Tyson says that he's been racially profiled, AND the numbers support that this is common, he has supported his own human experience with data, and those who claim that it's all a fabrication are really fighting uphill. So Tyson's experience is not definitive, but it is relevant, in that he has an opportunity to experience this profiling, just as Armstrong had an opportunity to feel lighter on the moon. And you don't.### Human: > In the same way, when Neil Degrasse Tyson says that he's been racially profiled, NDT is a known fabricator, nothing he says should be taken at face value.### Assistant: Not relevant. How about Neil Diamond on anti Semitism then?### Human: > Not relevant. Yes it is. Tyson expects to be taken at his word when speaking on matters of race. The fact is that Tyson is a known liar, his word has no value.

### Human: CMV: Any non-essential business should be legally able to refuse customers for any reason, religious or otherwise.### Assistant: Imagine racism is prevalent in a particular community. Every business selling mattresses refuses to sell to people of a particular race. Because racism is prevalent, those of that race cannot buy mattresses anywhere. Sometimes society will not self-govern to remove x-ism. In such a case, it falls upon the government to force removal of x-ism. This is why, for example, the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and why the Supreme Court ruled in *Heart of Atlanta Motel* that the Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. You are arguing that the Civil Rights Act should not have been passed; that blacks in the deep south should continue to be disenfranchised; that government should stay out of society. But there are groups of people in the United States who are protected classes due to the empirical evidence that they will be discriminated against in society and relegated to becoming second-class citizens--unless the government interferes. And so the government *should* interfere to prevent society from degrading into one of castes. Your argument is to leave choice in all matters to the business-owner--but this is a non-choice if the community pressures the business-owner to act a certain way through indoctrination or boycotts. From a values standpoint, equity/equality trumps individual freedom, for without equity/equality, there can be no freedom, but without freedom, there can be equity/equality.### Human: > Imagine racism is prevalent in a particular community. Every business selling mattresses refuses to sell to people of a particular race. Because racism is prevalent, those of that race cannot buy mattresses anywhere. Then I would open a mattress store and sell to everyone and rake in unbelievable profits. >Sometimes society will not self-govern to remove x-ism. It does. Perhaps you think that slavery was huge in the industrial North before the US civil war? Or did they start to abolish it themselves? You think that child labor was declining or increasing before child labor acts came into play? Government is always the last actor - they do not lead the way and usually are the originating obstacle. >You are arguing that the Civil Rights Act should not have been passed; that blacks in the deep south should continue to be disenfranchised; that government should stay out of society. The OP argues no such thing. In fact, the civil rights act was passed because government was instituting the laws you are supporting in the first place. Government came in to fix what some people thought was a problem. >But there are groups of people in the United States who are protected classes due to the empirical evidence I would list off a whole host of sources that show this is incorrect, but I will simply leave it at this - protected classes aren't specified. Woman is not a protected class, sex is a protected class - meaning it is equally illegal to discriminate against a man as it is a woman. It is as illegal to discriminate against a black person as it is a white, asian, brazillian, jewish, or indian person. >Your argument is to leave choice in all matters to the business-owner--but this is a non-choice if the community pressures the business-owner to act a certain way through indoctrination or boycotts. If the community is so homogeneous that they can hurt the business by a boycott, then your fears are unfounded as they do not have a population which would be supporting that business. If there is a market for it, someone will serve them. It is incredibly naive to think that in the racist south after the civil war and prior to the civil rights act did not have businesses which allowed all persons to purchase from them. >From a values standpoint, equity/equality trumps individual freedom, for without equity/equality, there can be no freedom, but without freedom, there can be equity/equality. Freedom doesn't work like that. Removing my ability to be free so you can have what you think is freedom is not freedom. Forcing me to serve you when I have an objection (regardless what the objection is) is not freedom.### Assistant: > Then I would open a mattress store and sell to everyone and rake in unbelievable profits During the civil rights era businesses that served black people were boycotted by the much more populous and wealthy white people forcing businesses to either segregate or fail. If serving black people lead to enormous profits in the south we wouldn't have ever needed the civil rights act.### Human: > If serving black people lead to enormous profits in the south we wouldn't have ever needed the civil rights act. So it is your contention that there existed only racially segregated businesses and no businesses allowed all customers? Cause I have this bridge in Brooklyn, I'll sell it to you for a fraction of the market value too...### Assistant: No, just that it was wide spread enough to require government intervention. I'm sure you could find examples of business that managed to survive while serving black people, particularly as you moved further north or in a few small pockets of progressivism here and there. Is it your contention that everyone was so racist there wasn't anyone willing to make millions if it meant serving black people?### Human: > No, just that it was wide spread enough to require government intervention. Except that it wasn't. In a few remote areas you had such vast discrimination, but generally speaking those areas were areas that blacks (or whites in the case of black businesses discriminating against whites) lived. > I'm sure you could find examples of business that managed to survive while serving black people, particularly as you moved further north or in a few small pockets of progressivism here and there. I didn't realize every major city in the US was "small pockets". >Is it your contention that everyone was so racist there wasn't anyone willing to make millions if it meant serving black people? That's your contention. There were many companies that did not abide by segregation. Railways, for instance, were incapable of segregating passengers due to cost of adding trains or running multiple sets of trains. Most national companies did not employ segregationist policies as well. Do you think Sears opened two stores per town? Or that they dedicated the same floor space for the same goods twice in their buildings? Most of what people think was willful segregation was businesses that held predominately goods that appealed to one race or the other, or were in neighborhoods which were predominately one race or the other. What you, and a lot of people who hold your views, believe is that businesses would rather waste money than sell goods. That somehow because a business opened in a community that was white, it was intentionally segregating the business instead of opening where money and customers were. Businessmen (even then) are less concerned with the color of your skin that the color of your wallet.### Assistant: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. That because some national businesses didn't discriminate it wasn't so bad for people? What do you think about whites only lunch counters? Why would those diner owners choose to turn away business if they value money so much over their values?### Human: > I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You know exactly what I'm getting at. >What do you think about whites only lunch counters? I couldn't care one way or another. I wouldn't go to those places and would vote with my wallet, like I do with multiple different companies today. I don't buy gas from BP because I disagree with their policies. I don't eat at Sonic because I disagree with their policies. >Why would those diner owners choose to turn away business if they value money so much over their values? In many cases because the law required it. Creating separate places in many cities and businesses was commonplace. For example rail cars were mandated to be separated (which several rail companies refused to comply with as extra cars was unsustainable).### Assistant: You seem to prefer to avoid tackling the tougher parts of your argument.### Human: You seem to like breaking the rules in the sidebar

### Human: CMV: If you outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. I'm fine with this.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: > Is prohibition keeping narcotics out of the hands of average gang bangers? It's keeping the difficult to manufacture drugs largely out of the market. LSD and real MDMA are hard to find and expensive. Meth takes a trip to the hardware store to make, Weed involves ignoring a plant for a while. Heroin & cocaine are manufactured in the third world with ridiculously easy to acquire chemicals.### Assistant: Cocaine is cheaper and more pure than the 1970s. Drug cartels are billionaires and anyone who doesn't consider the war on drugs a failure is a moron.### Human: So, the war on guns is supposed to work much different?### Assistant: Drugs are easier to make than guns.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: The argument, "There is a large consensus in the scientific community," is a valid point to bring up in an argument.### Assistant: > So saying "there is a consensus" isn't just saying that some smart people believe something; it's saying that there is a wealth of evidence to so support an idea that the most skeptical people in the world have come together and said: "all the evidence we have is pointing to this being right." I think the problem with this is that, if there is a wealth of evidence to support an idea then it's almost always better to point out the evidence itself, rather than just saying it exists and that most scientists see eye-to-eye because of said evidence. If all you do is say there's evidence without actually showing what it is, then you're basically just telling them to "Google it". And that is not really a "valid point" to make in an argument.### Human: But the consensus isn't simply saying that there is evidence; it's that there is so much evidence that every other viable explanation isn't as good and the one that the academics have agreed upon have been repeatedly shown to be right (or as "right" as any hypothesis can be). I agree that it could be seen as just saying "google it" which in a debate/argument setting is a bit inappropriate; however, there are instances wherein I am unable to point out all the evidence because I do not personally know it. Why? Because I'm not a specialist in that field. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection. I believe in it and I will use the argument that there is a consensus in the scientific community that it is right. But I could not, for the life of me, point out any specific experiment done. I know Darwin did something with birds in an island and maybe some plants (or maybe that's the 2x2 square guy...). Now, I can explain it and explain how it works (as a layman anyhow) but I can't point out specific arguments; and my explaining it is not an argument for the theory because I'm only explaining it, not proving it. For me, the theory of evolution by natural selection is so widely accepted by my peers that I never had the need to memorize specific experiments to convince people of it so I don't know these experiments. And there are other examples of this kind of problem. Do vaccines cause autism...no they do not. There is a consensus on it and I know that there have been an immense amount of experiments disproving them but I don't know the specifics of each experiment. This is why, in my opinion, saying "there is a consensus within the scientific/academic community" should hold some value at the minimum (I think the consensus should hold a lot more but I'll take what I can for now). We as laymen cannot know everything about everything; we trust others to know what they have specialized in--that's how specialization works.### Assistant: The argument is a roundabout appeal to authority, but the person you're arguing with clearly doesn't care about the credentials of the groups you're referencing which is what makes it a bad argument. Take this example: there is a large consensus between Christian preachers that Jesus is lord. Did I just convince you to convert to christianity? No? Really? I know you think that saying "scientists agree that evolution is real" should have value, but if the person you're talking to doesn't value the opinions of scientists then they need to be shown the actual findings and methodology or it's an empty argument.### Human: 1. If these people don't think that scientists have any value, then I'm not quite sure how showing them what scientists did will prove anything to them... 2. I make a point about the consensus being within a scientific community--although I may edit that to the academic community. Why the scientific/academic community? Because this is an appeal to an authority that does its best to self-regulate. To point out the flaws of their peers as well as push their thinking. Is this true for every single scientist/academic? No. But I do trust in the majority of them. Other groups generally aren't like that. 3. I'm not arguing the consensus argument is a good argument. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be stigmatized as having no value.### Assistant: >If these people don't think that scientists have any value, then I'm not quite sure how showing them what scientists did will prove anything to them... The scientific method is pretty convincing when you can show actual data. People who don't believe in evolution still follow their doctor's advice on finishing a course of antibiotics to avoid adaptation. You can do mini experiments with gravity (holding a pen in the air and asking the other person to predict what happens) to show the usefulness of the scientific method. While a person might mistrust a famous scientist (or an area of study), you can run through logical games with them. Ask them how they think something would be designed if it were done step by step or if it were done as a perfect design. >although I may edit that to the academic community. If you want to be shaken from this edit, look up "apologetics," a real area of academia, and ask yourself if you want to include this in your self-regulated group. Not all academics have a firm grasp of other areas of academia. >I'm not arguing the consensus argument is a good argument. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be stigmatized as having no value. It can have value, but it is often a short-cut to a better, more universal argument. If I tell you that the majority of scientists are atheists, is that a good argument against God? Well, probably not, unless I support it with the explanation of why this seems to be true and in order to make that convincing argument, I need to understand the subject matter.### Human: Actually, people don't follow their doctor's orders which really sucks for us. Second, the point of saying that there is a consensus is to say that the scientific method has been used, not once, not twice, not thrice, not in some small lab that you made in your basement. No, repeatedly, in labs that are better funded and with trained scientists that are qualified to do what they do. Second, by academics, I was just saying that the group I was talking about are people who are willing to change their ideas when new evidence comes to light. I was not being apologetic. Once again, I am not saying that the consensus argument is the best. You're right in that it is a shortcut but that doesn't change the fact that it has value (or that it should). Second, the majority of scientists don't say that there isn't a God, but that there is no evidence for a God and hence we should live our lives as if there isn't. But this is religion, this is something that is supposed to be faith based, something where evidence isn't the most important thing because it's a question of morality. Finally, your last statement is why I think the fact that there is a consensus is important to an argument. Because these scientists understand the subject matter, better than I ever will or could. They will understand it better than any other layman. Why is their consensus treated as something to be dismissed?### Assistant: On questions where someone distrusts scientific consensus, it is not always that they don't believe in science, or doubt the ability of scientists, but that they don't *trust them*. Scientific evidence, is data - it doesn't make judgements, that is the job of those interpreting it. Scientists, on the other hand, may be influenced by the prevailing opinion (self-fulfilling prophecy), or financial pressure (e.g. research seen as against the consensus doesn't get funded). The consensus has been wrong in the past, without the evidence, how is someone to know for sure that it is correct this time? It is better to point to evidence, rather than consensus, because if they see that the methods are reliable, and they can interpret the data for themselves, they can draw their own conclusions - which they are always more likely to believe in future.### Human: So, you want to be the one to interpret the data? There is a shit done of data in an experiment and (maybe you're different) but most people I know don't read every detail that went into an experiment and try to interpret it. They read the abstract that the scientist in charge of that experiment wrote--which has conclusion from the scientist as well as some information as to how the experiment was done. The reason why scientists are the ones doing the experiments is because they know how, they know what they're doing. And yes, can some be influenced by their own ideologies? yes, of course. But that shouldn't mean that we should ignore what the specialists in a field say is the best explanation they have because this explanation, this consensus, comes from evidence. Why is it that the fact that there is a consensus not imply evidence? It should IMO. EDIT: grammar

### Human: CMV: "Black" is more correct/unpresumptuous and less "offensive" than "African-American"### Assistant: Doesn't everyone under 35-ish years old already agree with this? The use of the phrase "African-American" really dates the speaker, IMO.### Human: I can point to multiple news articles published just this week that use "African-American"### Assistant: Well, yeah. That makes sense. The typical consumers of news are older than 35. Those articles are playing to their audience. [source](http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspaper-readership-by-age/) [another source](http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/192530/pew-4-out-of-10-young-people-read-daily-news-or-newspapers/)### Human: You just pulled that stat out of no where - the news pertains to everyone and "African-American" is still commonly used and is not a dated term...### Assistant: The Pew Research Center is not "no where," lol.

### Human: CMV: Concealed Carry should require extensive training### Assistant: well most states require training for concealed carry anyways, so your view should be that you believe CC should just be more restrictive. your examples of time at a shooting range and psych evaluation are already requirements in some states. i don't have a strong or solidified opinion on the topic, but i'll play devil's advocate. i'm going to make an assumption and base this argument on the grounds that guns and specifically CC should be allowed (i'm guessing in the US). suppose the following; i am a citizen in the great state of Oregon, and i live in the great city of Portland. i don't make a lot of money though, and i live in a more sketchy part of town. growing up, i hunted and played with guns, but never anything official. recently, there were a few violent crimes in my neighborhood, a few people even died, so i feel unsafe. my dad gave me a handgun when he passed away, and i used to keep it sentimentally but now feel that i want to have it around, just in case. previously in my great state, one just had to take a $40 online course and quiz in order to get a CC license, which is pretty reasonable for me. however, the incredible state of Oregon has now passed legislature requiring me to spend 10 hours in a shooting range, take an $80 course, and pay for a psych evaluation! i simply can't afford that, i work 60-80 hours a week already and am living paycheck to paycheck, when am i going to find time to go to an expensive shooting range, much less take an expensive course? i believe that my state is quelling my rights to carry a firearm as a citizen, and i feel unsafe for it. should the state be allowed to effectively remove my rights to CC? if so, what evidence is there to support that these restrictions reduce violent gun usage? a bigger question on the more technical side is what is entailed by a psych evaluation. what would restrict me from owning a gun? i personally have a history and high risk for severe depression. somewhere around 50% of gun crime is self-inflicted. should the state be able to remove my right to CC? i'm a functioning citizen and doing just fine, how do you justify removing my right to a self-defense tool? what about schizophrenics? who gets to decide which mental illnesses remove an individual's rights to CC, and what parameters are these based on? what if i'm a veteran with severe PTSD? should i also not be allowed to CC a firearm?### Human: > what would restrict me from owning a gun? i personally have a history and high risk for severe depression. 50% of gun crime is self-inflicted. should the state be able to remove my right to CC? I kind of feel like you answered your own question there. If you have a severe risk of self-harm then you should not have a gun in your home. I honestly hesitate to say that because I feel like that is beyond the scope of my CMV.### Assistant: major depressive disorder affects more than 15 million adults in the US, do you propose to revoke these rights from all of them? since depression is a recurring disorder, does anyone with a history of depression also get turned away when applying for a CC permit? what about someone with a family history of depression? at some point you're going to be excluding more than 10% of the population, which is rather unacceptable to most people. i do not believe i don't deserve the same rights as my neighbour because of something out of my control. it hurts me personally to know that the government doesn't trust me with the rights it gives everyone else. i don't think it's outside the scope of the CMV because discussion of your psych evaluation stipulation is warranted. i would like you to reply to the argument above, however. wouldn't these restrictions make it harder, in some cases not feasible, for good citizens who want to defend themselves to obtain a CC permit? is this outweighed by the potential benefits? if so, what evidence is there of the benefits of tightening CC permit restrictions, and is that safety worth potentially taking away rights from citizens?### Human: Kind of an aside, but if you are depressed and have access to a firearm there is an increased chance of a successful suicide attempt. That is a very real risk for people with depression who also own guns.### Assistant: That is a very real upside for depressed people in a country without a social safety net or access to medical care. Ending suffering is preferable to continued suffering.

### Human: CMV:Michael Scott from 'The Office' is actually a really funny boss and most people would probably love a boss like him.### Assistant: Having a boss who is so eager to be liked that he'll do anything to make his employees laugh is fun for the first few weeks.. until it's time to get work done. First of all, it's completely distracting. You can't get anything done because you have someone who needs you to laugh at all of their jokes distracting you, calling you into meetings, interrupting what you're doing. And it would be one thing if he owned the business, so he was okay with everything running behind or tasks not getting completed in time - but he doesn't, and the entire office is held accountable by a higher-up who could potentially demote or fire then. He spends more time being "funny" than being helpful, so when you have questions, you have to call whoever's above him to get a real answer. He doesn't take things seriously, so when you're stressed out or need guidance, he's more likely to respond with a joke that doesn't help resolve your issues. It's also exhausting to have to pander to someone who is so insecure that they need constant reassurance. Where your boss should be providing you reassurance on projects, they have to constantly cater to Michael's need to be liked. It would be like having a little kid in the office every day - sure, it's funny the first week or two, but eventually you get sick of having to drop what you're doing to answer questions or listen to a story or entertain a banal conversation. The other issue is that Michael frequently says and does things that cross a line - usually in an attempt to be funny, but in a real office, someone having their race or sexual orientation made fun of by the boss is uncomfortable, hurtful, and disrespectful.### Human: There are plenty of instances where Michael is serious about his business and gets actual work done (The contract with the county for example, or getting the Hammermill contract at the convention).### Assistant: Michael embodies the [Peter Principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle). He is an excellent salesman, which resulted in being promoted. However he has "risen to the level of his incompetence" as a manager. So while he is able to get contracts (the job of a salesman) he is bad at managerial duties like discipline (it is hard to discipline Stanley for saying "did I stutter?"), makes bad hiring decisions (he makes Kevin an accountant when he applied to work in the warehouse, he repeatedly rehires Ryan), paperwork (he makes the office stay late every year to turn in his reports before the deadline), and being appropriate (with consequences, he drives off the Stamford employees, causes repeated sensitivity training, and cannot work with Toby). This impacts the employees, like causing a major scandal because Creed doesn't do his job (and doesn't know what it is), forcing Angela and Oscar to essentially do all Kevin's work, and creating dangerous messes in the warehouse (playing with the baler and fork lift) that Darryl and his crew have to clean up (and repeatedly run safety training over). So while he can care about the business and be good at a job within it (salesman), he isn't necessarily good at his current job (managing).### Human: The thing about that is that he is actually (somehow) a great manager. His office is consistently the highest performing branch.### Assistant: Can we say that is him, though? When there is no manager in episode 7x24 things work smoothly. Pam practically has to act as Michael's handler to get things done (without which he might have ruined the branch), and his sales team have been shown to be individually very good at their jobs without help from (and sometimes in spite of) Michael, and at least half of them are from before he was manager so couldn't even be trained or selected by him. When he ran his own business it only "succeeded" because of dumb luck, not his planning. I'd say he is generally lucky, in the same way he is lucky he never got sued for harassment, killed someone in the warehouse, or had a more serious problem from people like Kevin and Creed being completely incompetent. Obviously this is because it is a show, but in real life I would be terrified to work with someone like that (as Darryl says he is "legitimately afraid").### Human: It's been a while since I watched it, but weren't there episodes where you find out little hints that he is actually a really good manager?### Assistant: Probably? I'm having trouble thinking of ones where it isn't him being good at sales. When Jim takes over for a little while and his decision to have a joint birthday party fails Michael points out he had done the same thing and learned from it, so he has some amount of experience. When pushed far enough he can be cool under pressure and do what needs to be done (like when Pam freaks out when they are making their paper company, or when he finally disciplines Stanley). He does care about his employees and will fight for them and forgive them, which I believe helps keep Dwight (and others) around on a few occasions. One could argue his lack of actual management lets people like Jim, Stanley, and Meredith thrive, but that doesn't seem to be intentional and there are lots of complaints about pointless time wasting meetings and distracting people (Jim says it is 80% of what he does). Dwight chaffs under a new boss and calls working under "the wild west" under which he worked best. So there are a few hints of competence, maybe even skill at times, but I can't think of nearly as many examples as I can of him being bad. Someone else might remember more, though.

### Human: CMV: I believe the future of global society is dark and sinister### Assistant: >Europe's economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society. Economies rise and fall, I wouldn't say this is a big deal (For the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal) unless it lasts for many many decades. The thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable. China can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 200 year time frame. Europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems. I'm not quite sure how to deal with government spying but I'm pretty sure an answer can present itself in 200 years. Do note, we didn't foresee the Internet 50 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide. What more can change in 200 years? We would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister. While we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.### Human: ∆ I think you are right in the fact that a lot of things can change and turn this trend around in 200 years. And as 1_Marauder pointed out below we do often forget the past. (e.g the scary cold war). The more I think about china the more I realize that as the population becomes more educated they too might eventually seek freedom.### Assistant: Regarding governments spying. It's a disturbing and worrying fact that they do, but the fact that we are now utterly aware of it is better than if we were to still be igorant.### Human: I agree it is a great that we finally know this and that this info is available to the public. However in my own experience the average person reads about the government committing acts of mass espionage on their own citizen, they get a bit angry, but then they don't care much beyond that.### Assistant: In end you have to ask if it is justifiable. Did they stop acts of terror through their networks? Obviously they can't say because POI's were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part. You also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country. They will find people that are anti-government, and that's what they look for. Especially if they have connections to foreign countries. I don't believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid. Like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on *their* rights as a citizen. I have been where you have been, and I got out when I realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the *media* that is insane. I have learned to take any "news story" with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean. Kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you. TL;DR - Things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.### Human: I like this. I often forget how much the media blows stuff out of propoertion.

### Human: I don't believe you should be required to have a valid prescription for contact lenses. CMV.### Assistant: You could use your insurance to buy them for a friend who doesn't have insurance.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: In addition to what Notblackandwhite said, I'm guessing if you buy a lot at once then you can get discounts (like at the eye doctor you can get free samples because they send eye doctors extra because they order to much). If prescriptions weren't required, someone with good insurance could do this and sell contacts to those without insurance and make a good profit. Unless you thinks it's a better idea to limit how many contacts you can buy, but that seems like a sillier law than requiring a prescription.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Do you think all drugs should be over the counter drugs? I know you can't abuse contacts in the same way as other drugs, but it's still the same idea.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Everything can be abused at some point, so it's not quite as black and white as you make out.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Well, they could swap them for some one else's prescription but I was actually referring to your naive view of over-the-counter drugs in light of the fact that you can clearly intentionally abuse drugs which are currently sold over-the counter. However I see the same point has also been made by others so I won't proceed with it further.

### Human: CMV: Common sense is a bs statement used to "win" arguments without any actual proof.### Assistant: Invoking common sense is often used as a counter to unnecessarily pedantic arguments, the type that someone brings up when they know they've lost the battle but still won't concede out of pure stubbornness. For example, if I said something general like "I'm pretty sure most people that buy shoes intend to wear them on their feet," someone could pedantically ask me for proof to back up the claim. It's a trick designed more as a "gotcha" than an actual point because if you cant provide data then you're forced to accept the possibility that your opponent might indeed be right. Appealing to common sense gives you something of a rebuttal for that. It's basically just saying "if you're going to suggest something as incredible as the idea that a significant portion of people that buy shoes don't wear them on their feet, then the burden of proof is on you to make your point, it's not on me to prove you wrong."### Human: >Invoking common sense is often used as a counter to unnecessarily pedantic arguments When I was a Public Defender, I had a couple of third year law students working under me as CLIs, so they could try their own cases. One of them was defending a juvenile who had stolen a car. Before the trial, he came to me and said that the state would have to prove the elements of a "motor vehicle" (In Florida, "a self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guideway, but not including any bicycle, motorized scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, swamp buggy, or moped.") He said if they didn't present evidence that it was a motor vehicle, the defense would win. I didn't want to shatter his confidence, and I wanted him to continue to think creatively, so I replied that it was a novel idea. He replied, "I can't lose." The reason this is relevant, is that when my law student presented this during closing arguments, the judge tried hard not to laugh or become frustrated by his pedantic strategy. She smiled and said, "I really don't think this was a Flintstone car, that needs bare feet to run. I'm going to take judicial notice that the car was a motor vehicle." That's common sense. The poor kid was shattered though.### Assistant: So you claim of not having informed him as to protect his confidence and creativity but you clearly knew that the judge would do much worse by him, and in public on top of that. That's like encouraging a terrible singer to go ahead and appear at a talent show. All you were protecting is yourself from appearing as the bad guy and you cost both the law student and his client by doing so. Commendable...### Human: Better to learn on what sounds like an already losing case, than find out the hard way when it would have been winnable.### Assistant: Uuh, what are you trying to say. I can't figure out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.### Human: I'm saying that letting him screw up will help make the lesson stick, so since it was probably a losing case anyway, it's not terrible to not correct him ahead of time.

### Human: CMV: We should stop discussing violence related to the Middle East in terms of Islam and start discussing it as a political issue.### Assistant: > I think this is harmful and the discussions end up being about Islam rather than the politics which causes the violence. The politics of the region are dominated by religion; the two are inextricably linked, to discuss one is to discuss the other.### Human: If religion was the most important factor in guiding the politics in the Middle East then all the Muslim countries would be working together/friendly which they are definitely not.### Assistant: Islam is not a one-size-fits-all religion, there are different denominations. Just as Christianity has Catholics, and Protestants, and Baptists, and so on, Islam has Sunni, Shia, and others. Not only that, but each denomination has multiple, sometimes vastly different schools of thought in it. Just because two countries share a religion does not mean they agree on that religion.### Human: Between 85% and 90% of Muslims are Sunni. That's not the issue.### Assistant: ...because all Sunni agree on every point of their religion and thus get along so well, right?### Human: I'm not aware of any religious disputes between Sunni Muslims.### Assistant: See this right here is why I find Islam so fascinatingly aggravating. There are many different schools of Quranic interpretation in Sunni Islam not to mention semi-religious movements such as Wahhabism. They manifest in various ways and cause all kinds of problems within Sunni Islam itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

### Human: CMV: Despite being very liberal otherwise, I feel strongly that we should have the right to bear arms### Assistant: Surely there is a happy medium between: "ban all guns" and "and hand out guns to everyone as a matter of right. " Would not it be better if guns were treated as a privilege? You would have to get testing, take a safety class. Then there can be a series of use restrictions, which are gradually rescinded.### Human: "Shall not be infringed"### Assistant: We are arguing "should" not "is." Constitution can be changed.### Human: Then do it the right way and amend it. Stop the half assed unconstitutional bans and feel good laws. If it's so important it's so common sense, amend the constitution.### Assistant: Umm.. Who says they don't want it to be an amendment? In fact that's literally what they meant when they said the constitution can be changed. So your comment was pointless and a bit rude.### Human: It will never be amended. There's not enough mindless sheep in this country to go along with that. 80+ million gun owners 300+ million guns. Never going to get rid of it### Assistant: That's pretty insulting and ignorant to call the people who would go along with it mindless sheep. if you cant talk about something you have a differing opinion on like an adult, im done. besides nothing of what you said had anything to do with the actual conversation. They arent arguing how to change it, they are arguing whether they should.### Human: If you're for socialism in America, then maybe you deserve to be insulted and are mindless sheep. If you want socialism so bad. Move to Europe. This isn't a socialist county and trying non stop to make it one is running it straight to hell. So like I've said, amend the constitution or hell, move to Europe and send us a postcard telling us all how great it is paying 60% tax in your utopia.

### Human: CMV: We've gone way overboard lately with PC-ness and the Social Justice movement.### Assistant: I know you are getting a lot of "don't go on twitter" advice, so I'll go a little to the side of that and say "don't take it all so critically." Besides something "exploding" on the internet often being barely a ripple to most people who aren't immersed in that specific subsection, 140 characters is not enough for nuance and can often make twitter slapfights even worse than they are. Often in the longer pieces, when someone criticizes something someone does, it doesn't mean that person is accusing the subject of being "Trump or Palin" or "a shitlord" or whatever. For example, you said: >Patton Oswalt, who at one point was booed in Philly for his anti-Bush beliefs back during 2004 or so, is now not worthy of being followed. He's in a category with Trump and Palin But lets look at the article: >In the end, it may just be a matter of medium. What makes Oswalt’s comedy sly, surreal, and subversive “in real life” makes it a lightning rod for denunciation on Twitter. I can understand, if just barely, why he might get a kick out of that—but not why anyone else would. The whole piece is super, super positive towards Oswalt as a comic. It is just arguing that his needling of twitter is a "shooting fish in a barrel," and not really adding anything to the conversation nor does he find it particularly funny, and so his is unfollowing him (despite, again, really liking him as a comic). Similarly, in the piece on Amy Schumer: > Schumer herself has shined a spotlight on rape culture, misogyny and sexism. But when it comes to race, she betrays this tradition. Nothing about her being terrible overall, just criticizing this small facet of her work. I'm not going to try to argue about overall trends, it is just too vague and I'm not big into this specific scene to break apart a pile of different arguments. However, I would argue that going immediately from "pure PC" to "shitlord" is not what is happening, and that sort of black and white thinking can be part of the problem of the internet hate machine (whichever direction it is pointed today).### Human: This was a really well-reasoned response. ∆ I can't say that it completely changes my view, but it certainly gives it perspective. I think when one is immersed in pop culture and the internet, it definitely has a skew on perception. I doubt one out of a hundred people on the street know or care who Suey Park is. IMO, so much the better.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: "Ghosting" someone is an incredibly disrespectful and insulting thing to do### Assistant: >I can't speak for everyone, but as someone who has been "ghosted" many times, here is what you're communicating with your silence: >"I am offended that you have attempted to communicate with me, so I am not going to dignify your message with a response. From my perspective, your time and your life has no value." No, that's not what people are communicating. That's what you, personally, are inferring from silence. And, to be honest, it's reading a lot like personal self-esteem issues manifesting via projection. You're making up a motivation and ascribing it to someone based only on silence. 'Your time and life has no value' - yikes man. That's a lot to read into silence. I've gotten ghosted once or twice. Sure, it was a bummer, but I never thought it meant that person thought I was offensive or that I was valueless. They just didn't feel a level of personal connection that made them feel obligated to definitively reject me. People have a million and one reasons why they don't text, or text back. You're distilling all these varieties of motivations down into 'they think I'm worthless and undeserving of their respect.' I'd venture that more of these reasons trend in the difficulty, awkwardness, and risk of verbalizing 'eh, they seem nice but I'm just not feeling it.' Personally, I started ghosting after a large percentage of my polite let downs resulted in either getting harassed and insulted or incessantly wheedled for another chance. Like so many other things, the assholes ruin it for everyone.### Human: Makes sense I suppose. I guess I just think about what it would take for me to completely ignore someone else's courteous advances. It would not be conceivable for me to ghost anyone who I respect as a human being. And there-in lies the disconnect. From my perspective, ghosting is about the most mean-spirited response imaginable to unwanted advances, and from the perspective of most women, it's a perfectly natural, acceptable, reasonable, and desirable way to go about things.### Assistant: >most mean-spirited response imaginable to unwanted advances Probably because you're meaner to yourself in the silence than anyone else would ever be in their words.### Human: Let's set my self-esteem aside for a moment, please. You're able to brush aside being ghosted, and that's great. But do you not see how it's insulting? It's not necessarily that "they think I'm worthless and undeserving of their respect" but that it's supremely dismissive, and yes, disrespectful. It's how one *would* treat someone they consider worthless.### Assistant: No, I don't consider it particularly disrespectful. 'Disrespectful' is a pretty heavy word and again, is reading a lot of intent into what mostly amounts to disinterest and avoidance of conflict. It may not be courteous, but I suppose I have a higher threshold of what I consider disrespectful. I don't find someone to have decided they don't find me attractive or interesting enough to date 'disrespectful' of me. They didn't owe me their attention to begin with, and they don't owe me an explanation for withdrawing it.### Human: > I don't find someone to have decided they don't find me attractive or interesting enough to date 'disrespectful' of me. I agree with statement 100%. It's not the lack of interest that's disrespectful.

### Human: CMV: If an airplane is hijacked by terrorists, the only sensible behaviour in a post-9/11 world is for the passengers to attempt to subdue them### Assistant: > If the terrorists are real and have real weapons, it's extremely likely that the passengers would die anyway, so there's no point in restraining their agression. I was curious about this point so I stumbled upon this [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings) that outlines all of the notable plane hijackings throughout history. In particular, I think it's important for your point to look at all hijackings after 9/11. ~~Since 9/11, there has not been a single plane hijacking that didn't land safely.~~ Edit: Oops, I missed one. So after 9/11 there was one plane that didn't land safely. This still doesn't support OP's claim that "it's extremely likely that the passengers would die anyway." That's 1 out of 15 hijackings. Or in other words, if you were on any given hijacked plane after 9/11 you had a 6.66...% chance of being on a plane where you were killed.### Human: A plane can also be hijacked for many reasons. I think you need to take it on a case by case basis, but I also believe that in the event it appears that the hijacking is a 9/11 type scenario, or has a high risk of being so, it is sensible to try and regain control of the plane at whatever cost, unless you are flying over a highly populated area at the time.### Assistant: The problem is that 9/11 didn't appear to be a 9/11 type scenario until the first place hit the tower. Until then the hijackers had even been using the fact that hijackings are usually not deadly affairs to their advantage. They told everyone that they would be OK if they just listened and sat still.### Human: Sure, but at the time hijackings were not used for that purpose. After 9/11 if it appears that Muslim terrorists are taking control of the plane, I believe it is sensible to subdue them and regain control of the aircraft at the cost of however many lives aboard the plane that it takes. The hijackers will obviously not divulge that you are as good as dead, for that exact reason. So I think you have to assume the worst.### Assistant: Well, it's hard to say that your plane has definitely been hijacked by Muslim terrorists, especially if they are purposefully obfuscating that fact to quell any potential passenger uprising. Frankly, I don't know what I would do if a plane I was on was hijacked. I like to think I would punch the guy out of the door like Indiana Jones, turn back to the other passengers and quip, "no ticket" while they all cheer but honestly I would probably be terrified and just hoping that this particular hijacking doesn't turn out to be deadly to me or anyone else. It becomes especially muddled when you can't be sure what the consequences of your actions are going to be. I'm not trying to say that fighting back isn't something you should consider, I'm just saying that I don't have enough information or training to make the best informed decision in any given moment regarding a plane hijacking.### Human: Well you make an educated guess as best you can. IMO, it's better to err on the side they are terrorists, because at the very least it will make terrorists believe that hijacking isn't. So easy.

### Human: I believe that many nations in the world spend too much money on things like the military and government pensions, and not enough on science and medical research. CMV### Assistant: They aren't unrelated. The US pumps billions into research each year but often it is labelled as part of the "defense budget". Often programs that have been designed for military application make their way into the public sector. The internet grew out of ARPANET (which was a government research project and created the most important protocols we still use today). We never would have made it to the moon as fast as we did without the German and our own rocketry programs. Advances in computing were due to DARPA projects, communication satallites and GPS, all grew out of DARPA projects. The US has continued this tradition pumping billions into robotics, power generation and synthetic materials every year. While it seems, the US is not investing into science and technology, the reality is quite different. The US is still rated #1 by far in technology (with good reason). Even without government intervention, the sheer vastness of the US economy, allows investment of billions into technology corporations. (The amount of money that flies around is more than the GDP of some nations). Medicine is the same (our medicines are costly due to poor policy) but due to the sheer vastness of the US economy, the government doesn't need to intervene but even so it does anyway. There are DARPA projects that research into new medicines etc.. > I believe that countries like Germany, The Netherlands and Japan (all of which have rather good economies and have relatively shrugged off the world-wide recession) are prime examples that stimulating research fields in the most innovative sectors spurs economic growth and creates more jobs because of the influx of businesses who want a piece of the innovation action. These nations were hurt from the recession from the housing bubble not technology. Besides, in japan the recession lasted longer than the US's did and in the Netherlands the recession is still going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_recession The vast majority of technology and medicine comes from the private sector, including NASA (I think it's important, but historically speaking most of our tech comes from private companies). So long as we encourage monetary investment (which we do) we have nothing to worry about falling behind, especially considering the US is the worlds largest economy. The one time it is appropriate for government research (which they give out plenty of grants) is when it is too costly (and too risky)for a private company to take on the research. It would not have made sense for a tech company to create ARPANET but it does for the government, or it doesn't make sense to put a man on the moon, but the government did it anyway. Tldr: We pump trillions into technology each year, it is just non obvious.### Human: While it is true that some of the defense budget is R and D it does not make up a substantial part of the defense budget (less that 14% of the total). Also the money that goes into R and D labeled "defense" does so for good reason, because it is being mainly used to find better ways to kill people. Now I want to be clear that it is highly necessary for the US to have a strong military that stays technologically advanced. My point though is that it is possible for the US to do that with a little less than the almost 700 billion dollars annually pumped into the defense budget and that some of the money would be better spent in science and medical R and D.### Assistant: > While it is true that some of the defense budget is R and D it does not make up a substantial part of the defense budget (less that 14% of the total). 14% is an enormous portion of the budget. Only procurement, operations, maintenance and personnel exceed it. The other factors will decrease as well because the Iraq war is now over. > Also the money that goes into R and D labeled "defense" does so for good reason, because it is being mainly used to find better ways to kill people No, research is done to make war easier, not necessarily kill the enemy (logistics, information, materials, etc..). Aside from few topics such as weapon design, almost every project has some application in the civilian sector even WMD research. Military AI research have applications in manufacturing for example. There is also the highly classified nature of certain parts of the R&D budget. If you break down budgets by nation, I highly doubt if you compare the budgets, the US is disproportionately favoring non-research areas.### Human: Do people in countries like America realize the ONLY reason they get to blow up innocent Iraqis and not the the other way around is the defense budget? You take away our ability to threaten, blackmail, and bully other countries, and soon there won't be any science or research because we'll be too busy being droned to death. You think any scientific research is going down in Baghdad? I don't understand how you guys fail to connect the biggest defense budget with the most power. That is how its always been, and if we cut back out spending we risk the chance of having Germany tapping our phones and telling us what to do instead of vice versa.### Assistant: This is ridiculous. We would have to do quite a bit of cutting before we would need to worry about people even having the ability to do that to us, let alone the desire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Not to mention even if we cut during peacetime, we still have the potential to mobilize if need be. Our army was smaller than Yugoslavia's before we entered into WW2. The logistics involved with invading or attacking the US are insane, its not something countries are going to do or really even could do.### Human: Of course a 1 percent reduction wouldn't have the biggest impact, but once you start cutting back, what's to say you stop at 1 percent? THE REASON THE LOGISTICS ARE SO INSANE IS OUR MILITARY POWER! Why is this so hard to understand?### Assistant: The reason the logistics are so insane is the two oceans separating us from any other major world power. Why is THAT hard to understand?

### Human: CMV: The X-Men should be in a separate universe than the rest of the Marvel U### Assistant: Wolverine is one of the most popular Marvel heroes, if the X-Men existed in a separate universe, he couldn't cross over with every other superhero.### Human: ...because no characters have ever crossed over from one universe to another before. Honestly, if the writers want to do something, they will come up with a way for it to "work", no matter how tenuous. See: every character that has ever been killed and resurrected.### Assistant: That's true, but if characters cross over, *I* consider them to be in the same universe.### Human: Be careful about that. If you're too strict with it, you'll end up having to come to terms with huge chunks of classic TV being inside the mind of an autistic child.### Assistant: Luckily for me, I ignore most of classic television.

### Human: CMV: I don't care about the lack of women in leadership positions, for the same reason that I don't care about he lack of women in prison### Assistant: There is a single unifying bias in the statistics you've shown, but it's not on the positive/negative axis you're expecting it to be. *"Males have more agency."* In positions of leadership, the increased perception of "ability to act" is a positive thing. This results in a greater number of males in leadership positions. In criminal cases, increased agency is most certainly a negative thing. If you are perceived to have a greater control of your circumstances, and yet you are connected to a crime, the conclusion is that you are therefore responsible for said crime. This results in greater prosecution rates for males, and consequently less prosecution rates for females under the perception that their situation was somehow "out of their control". Whether or not any of your four scenarios is accurate or not, there is still a sexist bias in play.### Human: > "Males have more agency." No. Women have more empathy. They feel much more uncomfortable taking minority positions. Going against the herd creates the very best and the very worst of society.### Assistant: Going against the herd =/= lack of empathy.### Human: http://faculty.rhodes.edu/wetzel/223webproj/conformity%20and%20gender/### Assistant: Your statement appears to be making a logical progression from more empathy to not going against the herd. Were you instead just writing independent statements?### Human: Empathy and conformity are related. Here is one of several excerpts from that link: > According to Eagley, Wood, and Fishbaugh (1981), women are more concerned than men about the quality of interpersonal relationships. Women take greater responsibility for establishing and maintaining interpersonal bonds, whereas men do not. Also, women are more empathetic and more accurate at decoding nonverbal communication than males. Male gender roles also claim that men should remain independent and not agree closely with others, while it is seen as acceptable for women to conform to group behaviors.### Assistant: That paragraph does not say, nor even seem to imply that empathy causes the confirming behaviors. "Empathy is the experience of understanding another person's condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and feel what they are feeling."

### Human: CMV: The gaming community, specifically on reddit, holds unrealistically high standards on games and developers.### Assistant: >3.) I'll preorder whatever the fuck I want, and here's why. Development doesn't start when the game goes on preorder. There's this notion that if you preorder a game, they say "oh, pack it up boys. We've made our money, sell the game with half the levels missing." No. That's not what happens. When a game goes on preorder, the vast, vast majority of what is going to be in the game is decided. The story, the mechanics, the physics, the maps, levels, everything. The time between preorder and release is usually for bug splitting and refining. Most of the time, whatever bugs get through are things that will only happen less than 1% of the time, and it just never came up in testing. Sometime people do a shitty job of that because of rushed schedules, which brings me to, The idea behind not preordering is that you don't know how good the game is going to be ahead of time. People that preordered Arkham Knight are a perfect example of this. The previous games were great, and ran decently enough, so people got complacent. Turns out, the game was a bag of shit when it launched and only recently got patched. >Why do we suddenly feel like DLC is the devil? If I was sold a complete game worth the money when I purchased it, then what's so wrong with paying for more content? Now I will agree that day one DLC of maps and extra levels and shit is unacceptable. I don't think most people would disagree with you, and that's really what's being complained about. Payday 2 has an unbelievable amount of DLC, some paid, some free, but the game constantly gets new characters, heists, weapons, skins, etc. People bitch about the price, but hey, that's what you pay for to keep development on a 2 year old game. The flip side is what happened with Mass Effect 2/3. Huge, huge parts of the story were put in DLC, basically giving you an incomplete experience if you didn't own them. I don't mind having expansions or new weapons and shit, but putting large pieces of the overall canon in DLC is a bad practice. >our standards are getting too high. MGSV just came out, and that game is excellent for a variety of reasons. I've seen people saying they wouldn't recommend this game to anyone. Want to know why? Because there is data in the game suggesting that there might have been additional story content that doesn't exist. I just finished MGSV, so I can give some perspective. The 3rd chapter was OBVIOUSLY removed from the game. Literally an entire story line didn't even get explored, with a character that is central to the other games. We know this content was supposed to exist, but doesn't, for one reason or another, because Kojima released a DVD with the story boards and overall plot, even including unfinished cut scenes. The issue is that, fundamentally, it is an unfinished game. The gameplay is fantastic, and I dropped 50 hours into the game in a week. If I weren't so invested in the story, I'd STILL probably be mad because the story line that was left off literally stemmed off of a huge event in the game that is never discussed again. People are allowed to complain about things they care about, and most of the complaints you've listed here are valid.### Human: ∆ I had never heard an actual example of DLC being material to the game itself, only seen people bitch about day one skins and the like which doesn't affect gameplay at all. Mass Effect 2/3 was a good example of an instance where the DLC made the game received feel incomplete, though I would like more examples if you have them. ∆ another for MGSV. I'm not done yet (Loving it though), but I didn't realize that Kojima had confirmed that he wanted the content in the game, I was also under the impression that the material left out was less significant to the story than you are saying, which made it seem like needless whining. I do, however, feel as though it isn't sufficient reason to go around telling people not to buy the game. Arkham Knight is a good example of pre-ordering gone bad, but it seems like this and other examples are too few and far between to condemn pre-ordering as a whole, which is what many people are doing.### Assistant: Kojima didn't exactly "confirm" it, but a DVD was sent out with a version of the game showing some of the missing content. It's posted on YouTube, so I'd recommend watching it after you finish the game. I absolutely loved MGSV. Gameplay is fantastic, and the environment is great. Story rules up until the ending, which is the real letdown of the game for me. Overall, I'd actually recommend it more to non-MGS players only because they won't be as invested as I was.### Human: I wonder if it will get finished at a later date and released as DLC?### Assistant: If they did that and charged for it, that would be one of the most egregious abuses of the DLC business model I've ever seen.### Human: I don't see why, the content wasn't ready on release. Maybe they couldn't realistically afford to keep producing it. After all, the two chapters we got cost them $80 million in development. I'd imagine it would be hard to sit there and watch another $40 million go out the door in expenses to make an already massive game 50% bigger. Doesn't seem greedy to want to release a great products to people and then reinvigorate the user base later when you finish the other $40 million with your profits.### Assistant: Honestly, because it should have been a part of the game. When you get to the part I'm talking about, you'll see. It's something that happens and you go "oh shit yea, that is definitely going to be the final section of the game" and it's literally never referenced again. If you want, I'll go into deeper detail, but I don't want to potentially spoil something for you. I'd have no problem if they came out with a DLC that adds onto the complete story presented in MGSV, maybe some more stories involving the Patriots/Cipher/whatever, but to produce a DLC containing an essential part of the main game and overall canon, I have a problem with that.### Human: I guess maybe you're right and I won't know until I'm done. I'm only 25% through hahaha### Assistant: 25% completion or 25% of the way through the main missions?### Human: Completion I believe. How many main missions are there?### Assistant: Main missions, 46. Like a billion side ops.### Human: 46 for both chapters?! I'm at 30 already 😢### Assistant: Yep.

### Human: I have some sexist views I'd REALLY like to get reasoned out of. I believe that men should be more dominant, aggressive and ambitious than women [CMV]### Assistant: Without knowing anything about your two co-workers' personal lives, your preconception may stem from your views of men and women in society. If you have some deeply-rooted feeling that, ultimately, a woman should be bearing and raising children, and that men should be providing for their families: it makes sense that you would be more harsh on the slacker male than the slacker female. But here's the thing: it's 2013 and neither of these things are a given. Unmarried adults (especially in their 20s) are becoming more and more common, child-rearing is being delayed, and more than 50% of American women are the primary bread-winners in their households. You judge your male co-worker more harshly because you unconsciously assume that he is (or will soon) be supporting a wife and children but, more and more, this might not be the case. By the same token, you give your female co-worker a pass, because you (unconsciously) assume that she has (or soon will have) a man to take care of her, ignoring the fact that she may be a single parent or have a spouse or partner who earns less. I'm going to assume that you at least grew up with a male parent who was the primary breadwinner in your family, and maybe entered the workforce when it was still predominantly male. If so, I can understand your paradigm. But you have to acknowledge that the demographics have shifted, and women are now carrying *more* of the burden of supporting their households themselves. For this reason, it does not make sense to expect more out of male co-workers than females.### Human: > more than 50% of American women are the primary bread-winners in their households. Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that women were generally paid less than men in similar roles.### Assistant: [According to a Pew Study, it's 40%] (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html), which is really pretty close, especially compared to it only being 10% 50 years ago. The one major caveat with that number, though, is the bulk of it consists of single mothers, so they're kind of the primary bread winners by default. However, even ignoring single parent households, 25% of married women make more than than their husbands, which is up from 6.2% in 1960, so it's not quite as high as the raw data shows, but it's a lot closer than it used to be, and that is still the definite undeniable trend.### Human: Single mothers are arguably the greatest detriment to any society. So given that I have some followup questions. What was the rate of unwed/single mothers 50 years ago? Does anyone honestly believe we're better off now, especially considering female depression/stress/medication etc is absolutely staggering at the present time?### Assistant: > Single mothers are arguably the greatest detriment to any society This is your opinion. It's not fact. > female depression/stress/medication etc Exists in males too. Social stigma just will not allow them to seek treatment for it.

### Human: I believe that Daylight Savings Time (DST) is convenient and necessary. CMV### Assistant: Well in today's working conditions, actual daylight is relatively unimportant. Most working people do not actually require daylight to do their work. What is growing in importance though, is cross border communication. Companies with offices and businesses in different parts of the world all need to coordinate. That's why many places uses gmt as some sort of "standard" time. Daylight savings time introduces an additional layer of confusion to global coordination. Additionally, not all countries practice dst, which makes it even harder to coordinate because the concept may be foreign to some. The usage of time zones has already diluted the importance of the position of the sun as indicator of time. I.e. In most parts of the world, the sun is not precisely overhead at its highest point at 12noon. Why introduce this additional correctional factor to undermine an already working system. At the end of the day, light dependent industries can simply move their working hours an hour back or ahead at their ~~desecration~~discretion which allows them to maximize their light working hours, which will not affect coordination with the rest of the world. edit: discretion. Industries don't get destroyed by light.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: You didn't really change my view, but thats a new perspective at least. I can sleep through basically anything, so 5 am construction doesn't faze me. But I know other people who would care about this. But why not have the time always set so the sun rises at 6 at the earliest? just be in "spring ahead" mode all year?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Meh, here in Alaska, kids wait for the bus in the dark from October through March and it's not an issue.### Human: It could become a problem in more populated urban areas as there would be more students crossing the street, and more drivers. Even accounting for the increased presence of street lights, there would be an increased risk of pedestrian accidents.

### Human: CMV: Neo-nazis, white supremacists, confederate sympathizers are not on par with BLM and antifa### Assistant: Than you haven't been watching this past year. A BLM/Black Power member murdered five fucking cops dude as well as started over a half dozen riots and assaulted countless people. Tons of cops have been assassinate by people influenced by BLM rhetoric. And Obama invites em to the white house.### Human: random influenced attacks = whole organization is responsible. Is Donald Trump responsible for the charlotessville attack because an alt-right folk drove a car through protestors? I mean steve bannon the owner of breitbart that basically founded the alt-right is on his cabinet? Donald Trump shares many of those views.### Assistant: Congratulations you got the point I was making > Is Donald Trump responsible for the charlotessville attack because an alt-right folk drove a car through protestors? Literally everyone in the leftist media and on reddit is claiming this as we speak.### Human: The difference is neo-nazi groups and white supremacists actually take credit for this kind of stuff.### Assistant: The guy who murdered the five cops definitely took credit for it, so did the guy who tried to murder ten gop congressman and senators. And how does that change anything at all anyways? Where did all the people who were at that rally "take credit for it"? Must have missed that. Keep playing these illogical collective blame games and then act surprised when it bites you in the ass.

### Human: If you willingly choose to forgo health insurance and end up in the emergency room, you should have to bear the entire cost of your stay, with no assistance from taxpayers. CMV.### Assistant: This is already the case. An uninsured person goes to the hospital, they get stuck with a huge bill, they go bankrupt and don't pay, and the cost gets diffused to everyone else. The rest of us aren't literally paying their bill, it just works out that way.### Human: > The rest of us aren't literally paying their bill, it just works out that way. Are you using literally in the figurative sense? I'm not following how you got from "it just works out that we pay the bill" to "we aren't *really* paying the bill".### Assistant: It's like when someone steals from a store. All the other customers suffer because to cover the loss, the business will increase prices. So, while not paying directly for the stolen goods, the collective pays with higher prices.### Human: I would contend that "literally" and "directly" aren't synonyms.### Assistant: Which is why I said "literally," because I was making the point that the uninsured person still receives a bill in the mail that they are legally responsible for paying.

### Human: CMV: Girls should not be allowed to join boys contact sports leagues, if they have the option to join a female-only league### Assistant: Its only awkward to tackle a girl until she burns you or is better then you. Once its a competition thats done. If you underestimate her its your fault. Im relatively small and play contact sports, you can get away with one freebie on the big guys sometimes, once you shake and bake that 6 and a half foot fucker once, hes just going to crush you next time. If a woman wants to play conact sports, youll learn to respect her enough to fucking bury her next time she tries to juke step you.### Human: > If a woman wants to play conact sports, youll learn to respect her enough to fucking bury her next time she tries to juke step you. it has nothing to do with respecting her. it has to do with the all holy hell that rains down on you for hurting a "girl". Its been said many times in this thread if as a guy you lay out a girl social contracts outside of the game take over. the only way to do it is to get rid of the idea "never hit a women". society has to say "there are times when hitting a woman is okay" and it will not do that. when men are held to a diffrent standered and youll see pleanty of that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5jr06p/cmv_there_should_be_no_social_or_legal_rule_about/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit) you cant think people will say nothing.### Assistant: If shes playing with the boys shes fair game, I very much doubt anyone would argue that in an organized, competative, league game. "Hit" in the sense of your link is far different than in the context of sport where it would mean a tackle or check rather than a punch, and also in a far different setting.### Human: the same mentality used to justify being less on her is the same one used in a game. we dont have mix gendered MMA for the same reason, even trans fighters cause controversy. until hitting a woman is seen the exact same as hitting a man we cant have women take hits from men.### Assistant: My neice plays football with boys because theres no girls league. Shes 9 and theres absolutely no controversey whatsoever. Mma is completely different### Human: As long as were using personal anecdotes when i wrestled in H.S. i had to wrestle a girl. I treated her as equal and during the match i dislocated and broke her arm. I got tons of hate and questions about why i went so hard.

### Human: CMV: If schools refuse to punish bullies than their victims should be able to fight them.### Assistant: You should change your view because it introduces too much chaos by putting the responsibility of bullying on the students and parents while they're under the jurisdiction and orders of the school (required to be in an environment). He-said she-said would be a big legal issue with your present view (with bullies, who are also deceptive and like to intimidate, claiming to be victims just "defending themselves", and schools claiming no knowledge) and a litigation nightmare. In other words, you're giving lots of work to entities who aren't responsible for the problem, or aren't there, and are depending on children to foot most of the responsibility to straighten things out. The ground is still too even and there's still too little order so that bullying itself isn't specifically targeted, it can just evolve again as it has already has evolved to function in modern schools. This solution just doesn't bring enough order, yet still orders good kids to do X, allowing for the schools and bullies to engage in further corruption (indifference, exploitation). This is how you solve that: You don't put more pressure on those at the bottom, but those at the top. So whenever bullying occurs, the schools and teachers get in trouble. If a fight breaks out in a class, the teacher is investigated for creating an unsafe environment, and the school is investigated for putting children in unsafe care. Make it a problem for schools, too, so that firing the teacher isn't the fix-all and invites an investigation into their management. Then they'd get real creative about stopping bullying before it starts. To do that, you'd have to fully cut off weasely options like arresting arguing students or allowing teachers to take everything as a threat. Then they'd have to come up with more creative and expensive solutions, like training teachers in conflict management and having counselors ready to remove disturbed, abused, and rowdy students for effective counseling. You do that by penalizing schools for abusing the local PD and prosecuting the schools for false police reports, including frivolous assault and threat charges, so that they'll fire teachers who do that and attempt to handle matters more independently and within stricter internal guidelines. Bottom line, just stop letting schools exploit the system and hold *them* to strict behavioral and educational standards, not students.### Human: Except what happens when the kids walk home from school and the bully knocks the kids teeth out because he got the school involved and the bully was excessively punished due to the trouble that the school would get in otherwise? In my experience there are two ways to stop bullying, neither of which involve authoritative figures, as this often amplifies the problem, either requiring the bully to put in too much effort to make it worth his while (fighting back, coming back with insults equally as demeaning, ect.) or attempting to become someone viewed as an ally (for example, he does something stupid and you help him get out of it, or vouch that he has not done something ((given it isn't bullying someone else, as that would be plain selfish)), however the latter would require that you do it in a way he does not see as being expected by him as that would only justify that his behaviour got him the results he was looking for, instead it would be implementing something that would help to increase your "value" in his eyes), while i acknowledge that the latter is more of a temporary solution, you have to realise that bullying is something that can never truly be abolished as it is human, let alone animal, instinct. Bullying in school is just that, in school, and avoiding it renders the same result as preventing it.### Assistant: Like I'm creating some bully arms race? Best to just let them bully in the safety of the school so they don't get *really* pissed and just continue casual, sadistic abuse? People have some weird theories on behavior.### Human: Yes. It is like trying to create a world where everyone is a winner, it does not work. On top of the fact that no one in the real world is going to be there to stop the "Meany" from hurting someone's feelings let alone physical harm, if a school is a place to learn for life, then it should not bestow an unrealistic view of human nature.### Assistant: Yes..it...does. Why do you think you don't get beat up walking down the street daily?### Human: Because beating someone up on the street does not reward someone with the same social reward as bullying in school does, the other people on the street will probably never see the "bully" again, where as the fellow students will see the bully every day until they graduate. Risk vs Reward. Aside from the fact that I added physical violence unnecessarily to my argument as I was mainly referencing verbal bullying in which the world would quite literally tell you to brush it off. No one is punished in the real world for hurting your feelings outside of a work environment, and even that is debatable.### Assistant: ..which is why you remove the rewards of school bullying and make it cause more work for the bully.### Human: The school is not in a position to take away the reward as the reward is achieved by the other students witnessing the bully "commit" their acts, after which point the award is entirely irrevocable.### Assistant: Yeah because the bully's actions meet no response from the authorities and it renders them the top dog and their petty actions pretty disruptive to everybody *but* them. That's the fucking problem. The power is in the hand of the bully.### Human: But no matter the reaction, the reward is untouched, the only thing that guarantees the lack of reward is the bully being "one-upped" in front of the same people that they were appealing to into the first place, and the only thing a higher power coming in and attempting to force a viewpoint on the youth will do is cause the youth to idolize the bully to an even higher extent, I.e. "fight the power"### Assistant: You have weird theories on how people behave. The reason "fight the power" works is because people don't respect the power, mostly because it's half-assed and *they're* being marginalized also and agree with the bully. This is why AP classes have fewer disruptions, because there are fewer grievances. If the bully is disrupting the majority, then it doesn't work. If the bully is adequately responded to, and supporters, you can put an end to it. Which is why you walk down the street safely, also.### Human: If you think kids respect schools officials let alone authority then you are out of touch. Aside from the fact that AP classes have less grievances because the children put into them have already demonstrated that they don't act in that manner, if you take all the kids who are nice and put them together of course it will be a room full of nice kids, the same way if you put all the bullies in one room it will be a room full of bullies. Plus the kids in the AP class are of the type to look down on bullying, so there is no reward in that case aside from hurting the person it is target against which is often not the goal to begin with.### Assistant: >If you think kids respect schools officials let alone authority then you are out of touch. That's because they have nothing to lose or gain. >Aside from the fact that AP classes have less grievances because the children put into them have already demonstrated that they don't act in that manner Because the system is working for them, not because they're especially cooperative or intelligent. I was among them, and they were extremely insecure and cruel kids. >Plus the kids in the AP class are of the type to look down on bullying No they're not.### Human: You can't punish kids who are watching something happen based on how they perceive it in their minds, and I'm not sure where you went to school but you must have been with some fucked up kids, AP kids are more likely to spread rumors behind people's backs then start a fight in class or make fun of someone in front of their face.

### Human: I do not think Richard Sherman's interview was bad. I think it was entertaining and more players should be like that. CMV### Assistant: Yes its boring to see the same regurgitated soundbites, but it also sets an example regarding sportsmanship and respect for your opponents. They arent ACTUALLY at war, they are adults playing a game. Sherman's rant is an example of the kind of low-class behavior that causes brawls. Sports is supposed to be fun, and sportsmanship and respect are a big part of keeping the game going. I would be embarrassed if I was a Seattle fan that someone representing my team and my city was so low class as to taunt a defeated opponent. Its somethign schoolyard bullies do, not professional adults.### Human: > Sports is supposed to be fun, and sportsmanship and respect are a big part of keeping the game going. I agree up to the point of professional sports. Pro sports are more about entertainment in my opinion. I do not see sportsmanship to be essential to pro sports. > I would be embarrassed if I was a Seattle fan that someone representing my team and my city was so low class as to taunt a defeated opponent. If you are embarrassed from this you need to take pro sport less seriously. I do not define myself by the pro sports team I follow. I just enjoy watching them.### Assistant: Sportsmanship isnt as essential to professional sports as it is to High School students where you are trying to teach life lessons along with the sport.. but its still pretty essential to having a popular, long lasting sport than parents feel ok about letting their kids get into. Think of sportsmanship like concussion prevention... its as much about future generations as it is about whats actually going on. There is a natural bond between a fan and his team. It can go from the most casual of followers to those freakshow fans who paint themselves and shell out hundreds of dollars for tickets in the freezing cold. The word 'fan' in that regard is a bit vague. But for those that do associate themselves with the Seahawks, they are saying at some level. "I like the Seahawks". Which in turn is at least partially saying "I like Richard Sherman". So when Richard Sherman makes an ass of himself on national TV... it reflects poorly on the Seahawks, and therefore on people who do have some kind 'Seahawk pride'. Take it to an extreme. What if Richard Sherman had spit on Michael Crabtree instead of just talking smack? Would that be embarrassing? Is there anything a player can do to make his team and its fans look bad? Suh stomps on a players head... does Detroit fan cheer or boo? What does that say about Suh and what does it say about the Detroit fans? Its very easy to say 'its just a game' or 'dont make a big deal out of it'. And there is some truth to it... but its also pretty easy to see that we have to draw a line somewhere and from the response its gotten, a decent chunk of the community thinks this behavior crosses that line.### Human: I don't think anyone's saying there isn't a line, OP is just saying that drawing the line at "Talking bad about an opponent" is a silly place to draw that line. The examples you gave (spitting, assault) are physical actions towards another person, so yes, obviously they would be out of line, but I haven't seen any good reasons that that line should be drawn at talking. It wasn't even that bad, there were no threats, verbal or otherwise, not even direct insults, just a claim of his own skills in an aggressive manner and an acknowledgement that the other player who he had just bested doubted his skills (which is true). Is this more about the tone he used? If he had calmly and slowly stated that he was the best and that Crabtree shouldn't talk bad about him would there have been this outcry? Or is it because in the heat of the most important win of his career after a game-winning play he was so pumped up and excited that he expressed himself loudly and vigorously? Basically: Do you think it reflects poorly on the Seahawks because of what he said or how he said it?### Assistant: its not about talking bad about an opponent. Its everything that interview was. It was completely juvenile and to promote this behavior as fine as an adult is horrific. He is leveraging his position of power since he just won and is using it to direct harm or hate or talking bad or whatever it is you want to call it at his opponent. This is an awful way to handle any relationship not just between players. Imagine if this was how we encouraged everyone to act. The world would be a shit hole. This is why its awful. Maybe its an act, maybe he knows people love to hate the bad guy but i see no moral position that can be taken in support of this behavior.### Human: The slippery slope fallacy of "what if everyone was like this" doesn't apply here, since we're not talking about that, we're talking about this specific case, or at the broadest the behavior of professional athletes. Professional athletes do many things that would not be good if the entire world did them. Being professional athletes, for example.### Assistant: I am aware we are talking about professional athletes but Im talking about promoting this sort of behavior as okay. We cant reasonably expect kids and even lots of adults to be able to discern that its only promoted because he is a professional athlete and quite frankly him being a professional athlete doesnt concern me in the slightest. Regardless of profession I think people should act like adults and acting poorly should not be promoted as okay. I am simply using the what if everyone acts like this as an extreme application of his behavior. Why would we give concessions to poor behavior because of this persons profession as a sports player.### Human: We give the concession of being allowed to beat the living hell out of people because they're a professional sports player. Why is yelling at a camera more offensive than that? Also "We can't trust that people can discern the difference" is frankly a sad argument. If we can't trust people to understand that different things are ok in different situations then we have a lot bigger problems than poorly behaving football players.### Assistant: we do give concessions to "beat the living hell out of people" in the spirit of playing the sport. This is not meant to be malicious even though it is violent in nature. Yelling at the camera in the manner of the interview is overtly malicious and breaks that. Maybe I am looking at this through a more romanticized view of sports but I cant condone this behaviour even if it is not discouraged by the majority. Its simply poor behavior for anyone regardless of the situation.### Human: >Yelling at the camera in the manner of the interview is overtly malicious and breaks that. Why? Why doesn't that fall under the same protection of "spirit of playing the sport"? The idea of sport is to show your prowess, specifically as compared to those you're facing, so yelling at the camera about your superiority over your opponent is simply an extension of that. I'm honestly interested in how you can call this malicious but not the actual violence happening on the field. >Its simply poor behavior for anyone regardless of the situation. So is beating the living hell out of people, and yet there is a situation where we've decided that it's ok. I never got an answer from the person I was originally replying to, so maybe you can answer: Is your issue with the content of his message or how it was delivered?### Assistant: you are saying beating the hell out of people like they are in a fist fight. They are playing within the confines of the rules of the sport which is meant to be played without the intention of injuring other players or not maliciously. I think showing your prowess is a side effect to winning in sports. The objective of the sport is for your team to beat the other team in putting the ball wherever it needs to be for the respective sport. The interview has nothing to do with the conduct on the field, it is simply an emotional outlet for this single player who is using it to direct hate towards other players. This is clearly not in the "spirit of the game" which is more of a gentleman's contest for lack of a better term. It is not meant to be a penis measuring contest and it should be encouraged to have mutual respect for your opponent while you are trying to beat them. None of this is shown in his interview. you keep bringing up beating the hell out of people. This is done within the confines of the game and the rules which are structured to maintain the integrity of the sport. The game is not lets make teams and beat the shit out of each other. Last guy standing wins. If that was the game I could very well understand how this interview would happen as both of these things are in the same vein and both should, of course, not be encouraged. I did answer you. My issue is with this persons character, or to be more specific, both the context and delivery of the message.

### Human: I think that all court cases should be decided with the defendant making statements in writing, not appearing in court denoting their race, gender, or physical attributes and that lawyers should all be workers of the state. CMV### Assistant: Your idea ignores two important things: The first is the defendant's right to face their accusers, rather than be absent from the proceedings. A defendant cannot tell their counsel that they object to a statement made in the court if they are not present for the court date. The second is the right to be judged by one's peers. If a defendant does not observe the jury and the jury does not observe the defendant, then neither group can be judged as the peer of the other. While this might get rid of inherent sexism and racism as factors of decision making, it would effectively dehumanize the defendant into a piece of paper. If I was a juror at a murder trial and got to hear and see the family members of the victim and their emotions in the court it would create a bias within me, but normally this bias can be offset by watching the defendant's facial reactions to their claims and their emotions as well as hearing the defendant's version in their own voice. If the only rebuttal was a written statement read aloud by the defense team, I would absolutely contend with my own bias against the defense being so callous that they wouldn't even show up to see that family and their tears and would have very little to dispel that bias.### Human: >The first is the defendant's right to face their accusers, rather than be absent from the proceedings. A defendant cannot tell their counsel that they object to a statement made in the court if they are not present for the court date. What was implied but not explicitly mentioned is the technology exists to meet both of these burdens. They can be present, just not physically present at the location. >The second is the right to be judged by one's peers. If a defendant does not observe the jury and the jury does not observe the defendant, then neither group can be judged as the peer of the other. While this might get rid of inherent sexism and racism as factors of decision making, it would effectively dehumanize the defendant into a piece of paper. This is the point of the this system. Addressed at the end of the OP. >If I was a juror at a murder trial and got to hear and see the family members of the victim and their emotions in the court it would create a bias within me, but normally this bias can be offset by watching the defendant's facial reactions to their claims and their emotions as well as hearing the defendant's version in their own voice. If the only rebuttal was a written statement read aloud by the defense team, I would absolutely contend with my own bias against the defense being so callous that they wouldn't even show up to see that family and their tears and would have very little to dispel that bias. In this system, no one shows up for court, since it is not allowed.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: >In the example of a "A physically attractive female teacher sexually assaults a minor. This person is much much less likely to be sentenced as heavily as a male teacher doing the same thing," you're entirely right, but this is because society finds the actions of an attractive female teacher less predatory than the actions of a male teacher (consequently, the victim, under the influence of their peers, might also going feel less abused). "Justice" does not occur in a bubble, but is an evolving reflection of the good AND the bad in society. Can you explicitly outline what you're arguing here? Are you saying laws should be applied differently to different genders and races? Or are you saying that people should be able to discriminate in their ability to apply their prejudices to the law? Also, should a better looking person be subject to a less punishment than someone who is ugly (this is clearly evident in female teacher sex cases)?### Assistant: What do you think the purpose of the court system is? Also, Do you think it should be a simple machine where pre-determined algorithms decide the fate of people?

### Human: CMV:Gender is biological, not socially constructed.### Assistant: None of your points refute the assertion that gender is a social construct, because it seems like you don't understand what exactly that means. Of course the biological differences between men and women influence our behavior. But we have, over time, developed language and a way of thinking *based on* those differences which we treat as universal truth but are actually not. "Oh, you can't ask him out, girls don't do that!" Where is the scientific evidence of a "girls can't ask out guys gene?" Maybe the reason we have that idea has its origins in a biological factor, but biology is not God. It doesn't 100% put us into either Box A or Box B: how could it? Not every woman is exactly the same, and not every man is the same. And yet there are only those two categories. "Gender is a social construct" as an idea is not saying, "we are entirely born as blank slates and gender is a made-up fantasy that is imposed on us." All language, all tradition, all categorization of human beings are social constructs, but they are constructed based on biological factors. They are "constructs," though, in the sense that they don't hold true with the reliability we typically want them to. Finally, you could argue that God is a social construct using your same logic: most people believe in God and most cultures have a concept of religion. It is likely there is a genetic component in human biology that leads to the development of religion. However, the specifics of WHAT that religion is is a social construct, and God doesn't actually exist. It is possible to not believe in him, or believe in him in differing ways.### Human: > "Gender is a social construct" as an idea is not saying, "we are entirely born as blank slates and gender is a made-up fantasy that is imposed on us." A lot of people understand it to be that way. In particular, the type of people who use the phrase "gender is a social construct" often use it to downplay or deny sexual differences and claim society is responsible.### Assistant: Plenty of people misappropriate concepts for their own political agendas. It doesn't invalidate the concept at all. It is also worth noting that coming off centuries of strictly defined and often harmful socially enforced gender roles, there is something to be said for pushing in the opposite direction even if you might find they take it to far.### Human: I dont think its a good idea to answer centuries of injustice with a noble lie. Always better to argue from a position of truth. Telling everyone that gender is a social construct implies it is a made up narrative like fiction. If people find that hard to believe they're going to reject your other arguments.### Assistant: > Telling everyone that gender is a social construct implies it is a made up narrative like fiction Except that social constructs are very real things. We are social animals. The concepts that we construct in our societies and cultures are nearly as influential as our genetics. Saying that gender is a social construct isn't about saying it isn't a truth of our reality. It's about recognizing that it is one of the truths that is defined socially. In that recognition, we can then take the power to alter that construct as necessary. Just as we can give someone hormones to produce desired changes in body chemistry, we can also provide a system of social and cultural reforms to alter the perception of gender. Saying that gender isn't a social construct is like saying that sexual organs are not the development of genetic coding. I believe that at least some of the people who use the phrase "social construct" to disregard the concept of gender are speaking specifically to the social construct of gender that exists in Western society, which is the construct of the gender binary. Every society has a social construction of gender, however in many other societies we see the constructed ideas of genders that do not coincide with the primary identifiable sexes, or that do coincide with sexes which we in Western society will "correct" in order to fit our social construct that there are only two valid genders. OP brings up how males born without penises will be castrated and raised as girls, but will then choose to identify as boys. This a great example of just how gender is a social construct. At birth, parents and doctors are presented with a sex that does not fit their social construct of gender. The child is neither exclusively male or female by their definitions. Social and cultural norms deem this unacceptable. Therefore, part of the genitalia is removed so that the child fits the social construct of gender. Later in life the child comes to recognize that they do not fit into the gender provided to them by society, and so call themselves boys because it is the only other option provided to them by our social construction of gender. We can compare this to Native American society and the concept of "two-spirit" people, an alternative construct to the gender binary. I don't know for certain how such a birth would be handled among the Native Americans and the existence of a two-spirit label varies from tribe to tribe, but it is entirely possible that a child born without a penis but otherwise male would be labeled not male or female but instead two-spirit. It would then be conceivable that the child would not feel any disassociation with their gender label later in life, because it would be an accurate description of their actual sex, that is beyond the concept of exclusively male or female. In either case the gender provided to and decided upon by the child is a social identity, constructed by their culture. Neither "male", "female", or "two-spirit" tells us the genetic construction of the individual. It tells us how they are perceived and interacted with in a social and cultural context.### Human: > we can also provide a system of social and cultural reforms to alter the perception of gender. Ah it depends on limits. Some things can be mitigated somethings can be overcome but there are urges people have. Plus social engineering is hard. What exactly do you want to do with gender? Where exactly are you taking it? > I believe that at least some of the people who use the phrase "social construct" to disregard the concept of gender are speaking specifically to the social construct of gender that exists in Western society, which is the construct of the gender binary. I agree people use a lot of these terms to mean different things. I think we're all aware that just the term gender hard to define. When you say Western society has a gender binary. Are you including all the variations in gender that people in Western society recognises? Even intolerant parts of society have to recognise identities to condemn them. The Bible condemns homosexual behavior so it's fare to say they recongised it. > Every society has a social construction of gender, however in many other societies we see the constructed ideas of genders that do not coincide with the primary identifiable sexes, or that do coincide with sexes which we in Western society will "correct" in order to fit our social construct that there are only two valid genders. Ah are you asking for the abolition of gender? If so I would say that is not possible and I would need a lot of evidence it were possible given that we know of no societies without gender. Do you think the abolition of gender would solve all people's issues with gender? > OP brings up how males born without penises will be castrated and raised as girls, but will then choose to identify as boys. This a great example of just how gender is a social construct. At birth, parents and doctors are presented with a sex that does not fit their social construct of gender. The child is neither exclusively male or female by their definitions. Social and cultural norms deem this unacceptable. Therefore, part of the genitalia is removed so that the child fits the social construct of gender. Later in life the child comes to recognize that they do not fit into the gender provided to them by society, and so call themselves boys because it is the only other option provided to them by our social construction of gender. So in theory if we have this world that accepts all genders what if (and I see this more likely) that person says "I would like a penis." I suspect they would. I don't see how this provides an example of social construction. They are raised as girls but something in them rejects their assigned sex? Are you telling me its a coincidence? Remember these are boys born without penises. Are you saying men should just be happy with the body they are given? That nature is always correct? > We can compare this to Native American society and the concept of "two-spirit" people, an alternative construct to the gender binary. I don't know for certain how such a birth would be handled among the Native Americans and the existence of a two-spirit label varies from tribe to tribe, but it is entirely possible that a child born without a penis but otherwise male would be labeled not male or female but instead two-spirit. It would then be conceivable that the child would not feel any disassociation with their gender label later in life, because it would be an accurate description of their actual sex, that is beyond the concept of exclusively male or female. In either case the gender provided to and decided upon by the child is a social identity, constructed by their culture. Neither "male", "female", or "two-spirit" tells us the genetic construction of the individual. It tells us how they are perceived and interacted with in a social and cultural context. But a person in Native American society might decided they are really one of the other genders right? Or are you saying native American Society is doing gender correctly? I'm sure people in Western society might find the Native American three gender policy better. I suspect both societies would recognise similar identities within them pointing to underlying structures rather than a blank slate.### Assistant: Commenting from my phone so please forgive the lack of formatting. I don't quite understand what mean by saying that there are urges people have in response to my point regarding the reformation of gender concepts. As to how I believe gender should develop as a concept, I think that the ideas already put forth by the LGBTQ community cover the wide spectrum of possible gender expression to a sufficient degree. Which brings me to your question about what I mean by Western society and our conceptions of gender. When I say Western society I am refering largely to the set of cultural values and norms which we can trace as being a part of those societies heavily influenced by Christianity, from the late Roman empire to modern day Europe, the Americas, and to an increasing extent Africa. As far as I understand the societies with a historical recognition of genders outside of male and female are Indian, some Native American tribes, Thai, and some African tribes. It's only very recently and thanks to various civil rights movements that there is any recognition of genders other than male and female in our society, and even that which does exist is very limited to the liberal extremes of our culture. Even on OKcupid, a rather left wing dating site which actually has a fairly large population of nonbinary members, the only options you have for your gender are male and female. Homosexuality is not gender, and as such I don't see how your point that the Bible recognizes homosexuality as a reality at all supports the idea that there are nonbinary genders recognized in our society. I don't want to abolish gender. I think we very much agree on the point that gender is a necessary part of society. Gender expression is an important social cue. The problem is that when many in our society see gender expressions outside of the cis and binary, they are cued by cultural values to attack, disregard, or otherwise oppress and marginalize that individual. The point I was trying to make in discussing boys born with partial genitalia is this: if gender were purely determined by biological and genetic cues then in any society those boys would be identified either as male or as a nonbinary gender specific to their genetic condition. This is the case in neither Western or Native American culture. Obviosuly then there are cues beyond the genetic and biological that determine gender. Additionally, when I proposed the concept that such boys could be comfortable in a two-spirit identity I did not mean to imply that that would exclusively be the case. What I meant to point out is that the two-spirit identity provides a unique role for those boys that they could potentially be more inclined to accept than female identification, as the two-spirit label would more accurately describe their situation. I would also like to add for consideration of gender as a social construct the point that there are biologically and genetically male and female individuals who will identify as a third gender or who will temporarily take on the identity of another gender. How can you explain the very real experiences of these individuals without recognizing the social construction of gender? To clarify I do recognize that there are genetic components to gender, but the biological differences really pale in comparison to the social differences.### Human: > I think that the ideas already put forth by the LGBTQ community cover the wide spectrum of possible gender expression to a sufficient degree. That LGBTQ spectrum though. I think the spectrum implies a variation of innate identities that a strict culture of male and female social constructs don't concord with. I think that biology generates the spectrum and society tries to handle them. >It's only very recently and thanks to various civil rights movements that there is any recognition of genders other than male and female in our society, and even that which does exist is very limited to the liberal extremes of our culture. Even on OKcupid, a rather left wing dating site which actually has a fairly large population of nonbinary members, the only options you have for your gender are male and female. Sue I agree. I think OKCupid is a bit narrow. However most fringe websites cover a lot of different identities. Reddit itself has a good range of organic subreddits expressing different identities. > Homosexuality is not gender, and as such I don't see how your point that the Bible recognizes homosexuality as a reality at all supports the idea that there are nonbinary genders recognized in our society. I mention the Bible to point out that a culture may have changed a lot since the Biblical culture but the activities are clearly familiar, implying biological cues. Homosexuality is not gender but it is an inter related topic. Homosexuality and gender non conformity are correlated. There is a strong relationship. The importance of this should not be dismissed. I would understand that homosexuality has biological causes. Homosexuality is related to gender non conformity which implies that gender non conformity has biological causes. Not all gender non conforming people are homosexual which implies that element is distinct from orientation. >I don't want to abolish gender. I think we very much agree on the point that gender is a necessary part of society. Gender expression is an important social cue. The problem is that when many in our society see gender expressions outside of the cis and binary, they are cued by cultural values to attack, disregard, or otherwise oppress and marginalize that individual. It's funny because I see gender as a mix of biology and culture which means you cannot "fix" all gender problems by social engineering. But you can perhaps social engineer society to cope with the range of genders produced by biology. > The point I was trying to make in discussing boys born with partial genitalia is this: if gender were purely determined by biological and genetic cues then in any society those boys would be identified either as male or as a nonbinary gender specific to their genetic condition. This is the case in neither Western or Native American culture. Obviosuly then there are cues beyond the genetic and biological that determine gender. Ah you see I saw it the other way round. Biology produces all kinds of gender and orientation. Through culture we try to interpret that. Just as we have biology that produces desires and emotions and then through culture we try to classify, cope and interpret those feelings. >Additionally, when I proposed the concept that such boys could be comfortable in a two-spirit identity I did not mean to imply that that would exclusively be the case. What I meant to point out is that the two-spirit identity provides a unique role for those boys that they could potentially be more inclined to accept than female identification, as the two-spirit label would more accurately describe their situation. Potentially they could identify with that label however that seems asking for the wrong organ to determine their behaviour. These were average biological males that had expressed no gender non conformity. To say they might be more likely to enjoy being a third gender seems to miss the point that the mind seems to influence gender preference more than the genitals. That is not to say the mind might suggest being a two spirit gender. But it would be the mind that decides that not the genitals. > I would also like to add for consideration of gender as a social construct the point that there are biologically and genetically male and female individuals who will identify as a third gender or who will temporarily take on the identity of another gender. How can you explain the very real experiences of these individuals without recognizing the social construction of gender? To clarify I do recognize that there are genetic components to gender, but the biological differences really pale in comparison to the social differences. How do I explain that people have an inexplicable desire to go against the social construct? I think people go against the social construct because of biology. I don't think biology only produces male and female identities. I think it produces a spectrum and most cultures have a limited way of interpreting them. Am I saying that gender causes x? No it need only be a place holder. Biology suggests we categorise by gender but culture chooses what goes in the boxes.

### Human: CMV: The United States' lack of prosecution for the individuals responsible for torture during the War on Terror sets a bad precedent for the prosecution of other war crimes around the world.### Assistant: The U.S. will only ever push for prosecution/overthrowing of war criminals when it's advantageous to foreign policy. This typically has a lot to do with trade. If the U.S. stands to gain nothing, it's likely nothing will be done unless pressure comes from elsewhere. Even so, foreign policy since even before the cold war followed a "do as I say and not as I do" disposition. This is mostly because of the U.S.'s military and economic status as a superpower. The U.S. is still a superpower in many respects so what we've done, even in recent history isn't going to affect much. People may try to spin current events to say otherwise but realistically that's just politics.### Human: I agree, but I'd also like to live in a world where the United States is an example for good, and where morality does inform our decision making. I don't deny that it probably *won't* happen, but I am arguing that it *should* happen. We live in a republic. If there was an overwhelming public outcry for the prosecution of these perpetrators, it would be good politics to do it.### Assistant: If we're staying on point, you argued that our actions would damage our ability to have foreign war criminals brought to justice. I think the conversation is otherwise getting off track.### Human: Do you think that, in cases where the United States doesn't have substantial trade interests, there is still a potential for fixing these problems without substantial U.S. pressure? If there is at all, I would argue it is greater when the American example is of prosecution and reparation.### Assistant: I would say that in the case of your initial question irrelevant, if we have the power to capture people perceived as war criminals and bring them to trial in our jurisdiction then that is all that is required. If nazi Germany had won WW2, there still would likely have been Nuremberg style trials, it just wouldn't have been Germans being tried. He who has the biggest stick makes the rules in geopolitics.

### Human: CMV: REGARDLESS of whether the memo's points are true or not, Google was justified in firing James Damore.### Assistant: Whether they're true oe not? Is some truth ungodly or something? Serious question.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >If you hold Truth as a naked and absolute good no matter what the context or circumstances, then you should agree that Germans hiding Jews in their houses should have told Nazis that they were hiding them. In this allegory the employees of Google wluld be vicious and ignorant like Nazis, anybody affected by thr facts are like persecuted and hunted Jews, and Damore failed to hide them. This all sounds radically judgemental. Also, in firing Damore and judging him, what role is Google playing in your allergory? The just and jealous God protecting the righteous suffering servants? Also how do we know that you and Google aren't the proverbial Nazis hunting people like Damore?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Okay and where did you get this absolute precept and perception?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: No it wasn't an absolute axiom, it was just a question. Your answer is actually yes, some truths are forbidden. You read into my question instead of answering it and saying what you think. Do you believe you're operating on a higher knowledge?

### Human: I think that India has an appalling culture, and a corrupt government that refuses to address pressing issues out of a sense of "tradition." CMV### Assistant: Now you've said two things in your headline, both of which I partly disagree with, but for different reasons. Your perception of Indian culture is rather warped, as I can see based on the points you've put down. I'll talk about them below. Source for the information: born and raised, been out of the country for just over a year, permanent home is still in India, along with almost all my family. 1. The caste system: Yes, it still exists, but in any town or city you will no longer see anyone practicing or condoning discrimination based on caste. The millenials from Indian cities don't even know what caste they belong to. This is the effect of education, which is sadly only accessible to children in towns and cities. There are illiterate pockets, huge ones, where these things still happen. It is, however, on the decline, and sharply. 2. Rapes: Yes, they happen. No, they do not happen as frequently as you think they do. This is an issue of confirmation bias and media warping. "India => rape" a reddit circlejerk, similar to "Russia => hates gays" and "Southern states => bunch of religious baby boomers." Western media doesn't report much about India other than the rapes, because last year's brutal gangrape caught a lot of attention and since then, people have been swallowing every story about India being the rape capital of the world. 3. Hinduism and sects: I really don't know what you're talking about here. I was raised a Hindu and am now an Atheist, but I know all the rituals that we used to perform, and none of them are predicated on the premise of ending the world. As for sects, I don't even know which sects you're talking about (I've never heard of these), but you would not color your opinion of the USA based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, would you? 4. The festivals: You're, I think, talking about Holi (that is certainly not how we celebrated Holi, but you're right about colors). Awareness about industrial chemicals is pretty high, and most people use a water soluble powder called "gulaal" to play holi with. I'm also not sure how this ties into Indian culture being appalling. You wouldn't call American culture appalling because they celebrate Halloween, would you? 5. Arranged marriages: They're not a bad thing if both parties give their consent. In fact, all arranged marriages I've seen have been extremely carefully considered, and all of them have been happy. My parents had an arranged marriage, and they've been happily married for nearly 30 years now. 6. Child marriage: I'm not sure where you got your statistics for them happening in developed places. Child marriages in any major city is unheard of. There is a very popular, long running TV show as well, which seeks to educate the less educated people about child marriage. 7. Human rights to animals: This a bad thing because? Yes, the Ganges is effing disgusting. Yes, there is shitloads of pollution. That point is irrefutably true. Now your second point, about a corrupt government, is almost completely correct. The current Indian government is absolutely terrible, and it is solely because of the extreme levels of corruption that begin at the lowest level (government clerks) and continue up to the politicians who have billions of dollars stored in offshore accounts. The only objective of the government in power is to make money and gather votes in order to repeat the cycle Fortunately, there are elections coming up next year. The public anger against the current ruling party means that the opposition is likely to win the elections. Any new government that does form will be no less corrupt, but it should certainly be better than the absolutely pathetic administration that we have had since 2010. The thing I disagree about, though, is not that the government chooses not to enact change because of tradition. It's because they just don't give a fuck.### Human: > Yes, the Ganges is effing disgusting. [Really?](http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filthy-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html)### Assistant: While the photos were interesting (having been to the Ganges myself) I'm not sure I liked the judgmental tone of the article. Some of the Chinese commenters there were just awful.### Human: Yes, good point. I never fail to be enlightened by the level of intellectual discourse in the user comments of American blogs or news outlets. You're right that only the Chinese judge other cultures harshly.### Assistant: Jesus, I wasn't saying that. It's just not often you see a comment saying (and I quote) 'All this is easy to fix, just use violence. China uses the hukou system to keep the poor population from settling in cities, and then uses chengguan to beat the rabble to death. The cities will then look very nice.'

### Human: I think reposts on Reddit are actually good for the website, and complaining about them is a waste of time. CMV.### Assistant: Let's differentiate two types of reposts. The first, what I will call "natural reposts", are things that are reposted because someone happened to stumble across it, find it funny, and share it without knowing that it had previously been shared. The second, what I will call "whore reposts", are things that are known to have been around previously a while ago, and are being reposted for karma points. The value in having community pseudo-outrage about reposts is to discourage the latter. Think of the difference in reaction that comes when a repost is done in the context of "hey, here's this cool thing I saw" (which is often a natural repost) vs "this happened to a friend of mine" (which is a lie and almost always a whore repost). By decrying the latter, we establish a community standard that says that reposts for the sake of reposting are not ok, and come with whatever modicum of shame that you associate with being called out. It has the same social utility of calling someone out for talking during a movie.### Human: I see where you're coming from. The *proper* course of action is to call out an obvious poweruser/whore poster, but the issue is that not everyone is aware of that unwritten rule, and will go around calling out "everybody" who reposts, which ultimately makes no reposter safe, natural or not. I think my opinion has been half changed. I understand the benefit of calling out whore posters, but too often do I see natural reposters suffering from the same psuedo-abuse. It's almost like the police officer mindset of taking no chances, using full aggression from the start and assessing the situation later. From your examples, you make it seem as though it's pretty easy to differentiate the two types of reposts, but that isn't really the case, based on the comment sections of them.### Assistant: Maybe we could look at things by type of post as well. In my (admittedly limited experience), that seems to be big differentiator of likely intent. For example - if someone reposts a meme, the assumption is usually that they are karma whoring. That's not always true, but it's kind of reasonable - I mean, who's going to just see a meme and honestly believe "this is great, maybe no one has submitted it to Reddit yet". So meme reposts get trashed (e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1sq1vt/my_friends_kid_wanted_an_xmas_tree_going_through/) But TIL reposts are very different - the more likely assumption is that people are always learning and sharing, and stumbling upon random information and wanting to share it is less likely to be "whoring". So TIL reposts get better reactions (e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1rxs7z/til_an_indian_man_singlehandedly_planted_a_1360/) There are still comments in there about it being a repost, but they aren't voted as high and are dominated by a lot of encouragement to the poster. So again, I think it comes down to what the hivemind perceives as the context for a repost. And I think that at least attempting to call out karma whorish behavior has utility.### Human: This whole discussion just proves that the subject of reposts has many layers and variables and isn't as simple as most would think, and besides, like I said in my original post, the whole concept and consequence of reposting is simply a result and natural phenomenon of the kind of website this is. It's like one giant chemical reaction. And the fact you bring up what *kind* of post is interesting, and actually confirmed. I've posted OC memes that have gotten either downvotes or no attention at all, and my most recent example of this preference is of a TIL relating to Grace Hopper I posted a week or so ago. Despite it being a repost (it didn't break the sub's 2 month rule, however), and being tagged as inaccurate, it still gained over 500 upvotes. When it comes to reposts, I don't know if my view will ever be changed. There are simply too many variables and layers. This very well could be an "agree to disagree" topic. The only thing I've gained so far is insight into the other points of view relating to this.### Assistant: I have the same opinion as /u/brycesenz, in that natural reposting isn't wrong, but karma whores are a whole other beast. Since I've been on this site, I have started tagging accounts who habitually repost. I've probably tagged 50-60 at least. Now, some of these I don't see too often, but you'd be surprised at the number of posts on my front page that have been submitted by these tagged reposters. Some of them I have downvoted 250+ times. That means I've seen 250 or more of their posts on the front page, all reposts! The thing is, I'm not even subscribed to most of the default subreddits. If I was subscribed to Funny or other similar subs, I'm sure that number would be even higher.

### Human: CMV: The NSA should stop spying on us and I'm ok with the consequences of that.### Assistant: > but that's ok because the chances of those things happening are relatively low. My freedom to do what I please is more important to me. It might be more accurate to say that the chances of these things happening TO YOU are relatively low. These things are going to happen; I would even go so far as to say it's a certainty. The chance is essentially 100 percent. You would gain your privacy, sure. And arguably others would gain theirs. But you're not just trading away a certain increase in your own safety; your proposal trades away that increase in safety for EVERYONE. Suppose I told you that 1000 people would die in terrorist attacks per year. Suppose, further, that I told you that absolutely unrestricted access to your data would bring that number down to 100. So we could surmise that SOME level of access to your data would bring it to some intermediate value. Is there any level of privacy you're willing to trade to save innocent lives?### Human: By that logic smoking *has* to be banned immediately. Smoking gives less benefits than increased privacy and kills more than 1000 people every year. Arguably people also shouldn't have the ability to drive cars themselves. I am being a bit blunt, but if you argue from the point of increased death tolls then it would be hypocritical not to seriously banning other risk factors like smoking, wouldn't it?### Assistant: I disagree, because smoking is a risk people understand and accept unto themselves. With the exception of secondhand smoke, which there are many laws in place to mitigate, YOU smoking doesn't put ME at risk.### Human: > It might be more accurate to say that the chances of these things happening TO YOU are relatively low. These things are going to happen; I would even go so far as to say it's a certainty. Tobacco deaths are a certainty, the probability of it affecting you is slim, but second hand smoke can still be the cause of your cancer. >But you're not just trading away a certain increase in your own safety; your proposal trades away that increase in safety for EVERYONE. Removing cigarettes would bring down health hazards of second hand smoke, unintentional fires and it would bring down healthcare costs for the public. >I disagree, because smoking is a risk people understand and accept unto themselves. With the exception of secondhand smoke, which there are many laws in place to mitigate, YOU smoking doesn't put ME at risk. While that is true, it still affects you. You can die in unintentional fires that were caused by cigarette butts (very slim chance, but then again, so is the probability to die from a terrorist attack, but 100% chance of it happening in general, just like you said about terrorist attacks). Also the increase in healthcare costs affects everyone. And what about driving cars? The annual road death toll is way higher than terrorist victim numbers in the US per year. Driving does not only affect the driver but also pedestrians because they get hit too. So if you are arguing from the number of deaths prevented you *must* consider banning driving as well.### Assistant: > Tobacco deaths are a certainty, the probability of it affecting you is slim, but second hand smoke can still be the cause of your cancer. And we have laws in place to reduce that effect. Just as the NSA is in place for various reasons, to reduce certain risks. > Removing cigarettes would bring down health hazards of second hand smoke, unintentional fires and it would bring down healthcare costs for the public. Yes, it would. But we have mechanisms in place to reduce the risk of secondhand smoke, the unintentional fires usually primarily affect those who choose to engage in this behavior, and health care costs for the public is a HUGE ball of wax that probably deserves an entire separate subreddit to even begin to discuss. > While that is true, it still affects you. You can die in unintentional fires that were caused by cigarette butts (very slim chance, but then again, so is the probability to die from a terrorist attack, but 100% chance of it happening in general, just like you said about terrorist attacks). Okay. and I'm perfectly happy that SOME mechanisms are in place to reduce that risk, just as I'm happy that SOME mechanisms are in place to mitigate the risk of terrorist attack. > And what about driving cars? The annual road death toll is way higher than terrorist victim numbers in the US per year. Driving does not only affect the driver but also pedestrians because they get hit too. So if you are arguing from the number of deaths prevented you must consider banning driving as well. But consider the benefits of driving. The cost of driving is, true, many thousands of people killed and maimed. The benefits are also massive. The cost of zero intelligence gathering, though we have no exact number, is sure to be larger than it is now. What is the benefit? If it's "no more people listening to my phone calls without a warrant, even if they have probably cause", I don't consider that a sufficient benefit for the cost.### Human: > If it's "no more people listening to my phone calls without a warrant, even if they have probably cause", I don't consider that a sufficient benefit for the cost. As Snowden said, there is no freedom of thought possible without privacy. It's about the power balance between the people and their representatives. What is happening right now is that the US is drifting more and more towards a state where there are the governed and the government, instead of the electorate and the elected. Another point is, that every change in society that arguably had a very positive outcome was in some way illegal when it happened. Consider the french or the american revolution. Both were crimes at the time. Had there been a perfect surveillance of every citizen, as it is either possible all ready or in the very near future will be (TEMPORA all ready monitored not only metadata but also the content of every call) those events could have been prevented. Consider a policy change and the NSA apparatus falls into the hands of a government that wants to intern the Japanese americans again. Perfect control of the citizens by the state apparatus has a lot of drawbacks with very very little benefit, it also undermines the fundamental principles of the American constitution.### Assistant: > As Snowden said, there is no freedom of thought possible without privacy. Which sounds nice, but I thinks it's overly simplistic. I think adding "without SOME privacy" would bring it closer to truth. I have perfect freedom of thought now, without having perfect privacy. > Another point is, that every change in society that arguably had a very positive outcome was in some way illegal when it happened. Consider the french or the american revolution. Both were crimes at the time. Okay. And a LOT of crimes are just damaging. Just because a few crimes turned out well for some people doesn't legitimize all crime. > Perfect control of the citizens by the state apparatus has a lot of drawbacks with very very little benefit. Agreed. Of course, "some intelligence gathering" doesn't equate to "perfect control".### Human: >Agreed. Of course, "some intelligence gathering" doesn't equate to "perfect control". How do you know? NSA officials have been proven to lie when giving official testimony. Parties involved are restrained by gag orders. How do you know what they know and what they filter for? For all you can now you could just end up on the no fly list one day, without any way of figuring out why. >Okay. And a LOT of crimes are just damaging. Just because a few crimes turned out well for some people doesn't legitimize all crime. Of course, but we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If a crime is committed, then the police has to investigate, but investigating citizens that are not criminals is wrong and should not happen. >Which sounds nice, but I thinks it's overly simplistic. I think adding "without SOME privacy" would bring it closer to truth. I have perfect freedom of thought now, without having perfect privacy. How do you know there is some privacy? How do you know the NSA doesn't read all of your emails? Some surveillance would be possible without putting it in the hands of a secret agency. Put it out in the open so there can be some oversight and thus some approval by the citizens.### Assistant: > How do you know? Because we're living the proof right now. They are gathering some intelligence, and they don't have perfect control. > Of course, but we have the principle of guilty until proven innocent. If a crime is committed, then the police has to investigate, but investigating citizens that are not criminals is wrong. What? The police investigate people that they don't know are criminals all the time. They just call them "suspects". If they only went after people that they knew to a certainty were criminals, there would be no need to investigate; they would be criminals. You have to investigate to see if someone is a criminal, which means that at some point you're going to investigate an innocent person. > How do you know there is some privacy? How do you know the NSA doesn't read all of your emails? They might, but that's not all there is to privacy. I know there are plenty of things I do, say, and think that aren't observed.### Human: >The police investigate people that they don't know are criminals all the time. They just call them "suspects". If they only went after people that they knew to a certainty were criminals, there would be no need to investigate; they would be criminals. I meant it as in: Not every citizen should be treated as a suspect without reasonable indication that he/she could be involved in a crime. >Because we're living the proof right now. They are gathering some intelligence, and they don't have perfect control. I wouldn't agree. How do you know they don't have all your communications saved? Just because they do not chose to prosecute you for something does not mean they couldn't. Consider the policy changing and a future government does not want you to criticize them. With perfect surveillance they can always find *something* to take you in for. There are enough laws to make every citizen a criminal. What about sneaking in child pornography on your computer? The NSA already has the ability on some devices to install data silently. Consider the situation of political dissidents or activists. Maybe the policy of the government right now is benevolent, but who says that the government will always stay that way? Is it the right way to give them the ability to know all private communications of its citizens? If so, does the result (marginally increased safety, if seen per citizen a negligibly small gain, if noticeable at all) justify the huge risk? >I know there are plenty of things I do, say, and think that aren't observed. Yes, right now, because technology is not 100% invasive yet. What happens when the government starts tapping Smart-TVs? They can listen to every conversation you have in your living room. What next? The places where you can have a private conversation are getting fever. I think its naive to assume that the government will monitor emails and phone calls and not more as technology progresses.### Assistant: > I meant it as in: Not every citizen should be treated as a suspect without reasonable indication that he could be involved in a crime. Agreed. And then we get back into what constitutes "reasonable". > I wouldn't agree. How do you know they don't have all your communications saved? Because not all of my communications are electronic; some are hard copy, handed hand-to-hand. And communications privacy is not the only form of privacy. > There are enough laws to make every citizen a criminal. Then reform of those laws is needed. > Maybe the policy of the government right now is benevolent, but who says that the government will always stay that way? Is it the right way to give them the ability to know all private communications of its citizens? I don't think or assume they're benevolent now, not do I think they should have access to all communications. > Yes, right now, because technology is not 100% invasive yet. What happens when the government starts tapping Smart-TVs? They can listen to every conversation you have in your living room. What next? The places where you can have a private conversation are getting fever. I think its naive to assume that the government will monitor emails and phone calls and not more as technology progresses. And I don't assume that at all. I never said, not will I ever say, that they should indiscriminately tap all communications. There are controls in place to prevent that, and I think that's good.### Human: Fair enough. > There are controls in place to prevent that, and I think that's good. How do you know? NSA officials have been proven to lie to the public and even oversight committees. Companies involved cannot speak because of gag orders. How do you know there is sufficient oversight? How can you know, that the government will not indiscriminately tap all communications now or in the future?### Assistant: > How do you know? NSA officials have been proven to lie to the public and even oversight committees. Companies involved cannot speak because of gag orders. How do you know there is sufficient oversight? I don't know that the oversight is sufficient. I know it exists, not least because these oversight committees exist at all; you can't like to a nonexistent committee. > How can you know, that the government will not indiscriminately tap all communications now or in the future? Putting any regulatory mechanisms, I think it's reasonable that they don't NOW just because of the massive technological burden; I don't think they CAN effectively tap and analyze all our communications. In the future? They very well might, and that's something we need to work against.### Human: > In the future? They very well might, and that's something we need to work against. Okay lets me ask you this: Where is the limit of wiretapping? At what point does intercepting communications become too much? Without defining such a limit, we must either say all wiretapping is okay or no wiretapping is.### Assistant: Personally? I would accept wiretapping as either covered by a warrant, or undertaken in extreme circumstances where issuing a warrant is not practical. In such extreme circumstances, the situation would have to be justified to a judge within a certain time frame, say 48 hours. if said justification failed, the data gathered would have to be erased.

### Human: CMV: Laws restricting the sale of alcohol, dancing, etc. on Easter have no place in a modern secular country### Assistant: I dont see any difference between an Easter Law and a generic Sunday law. Both have no place in a secular society. They are the result of one group using the law to enforce its preferences on everyone. A day of rest is great and all, but if I'm a new immigrant or a young man just starting out, maybe I want the extra shift to help balance my budget or pay off my student loans. The choice should be mine, since the only person adversely affected is me. I think if you're willing to accept "Day of Rest" laws, you really dont have a philosophical ground to stand on for Easter laws.### Human: I agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph, but would like to change your view in your first paragraph. I believe that there is actually a fairly large difference between an Easter Law and a generic Sunday law, and the latter does have a place in modern society while the former does not. Historically, they were both started for religious reasons, but Sunday laws are perpetuated, not by the religious, but by business owners, especially small business owners. For example, in Minnesota, it is illegal for car dealerships to be open on Sundays. That seems absurd, right? They're missing out on an entire day of selling cars. If they could sell on Sundays too, they'd increase sales by roughly 15%! Except that they wouldn't. Sure, if only one dealership was open an extra day, that dealership would sell more, but if the law wasn't there, then every single car dealership would be open 7 days a week. People aren't going to buy more cars...either someone is going to buy a car or they aren't. Greater availability doesn't increase sales, it just increases costs to generate those same sales. You'll notice that Sunday restrictions typically apply to things that have a pretty constant demand, not things whose demand changes based on availability. For example, liquor stores are closed on Sundays. But you know what isn't closed on Sundays? Bars. If the laws were to prevent consumption of alcohol on Sunday, bars would be closed on Sundays. But they're not, because that would decrease sales/profits. Liquor stores, on the other hand, are going to sell roughly the same amount of alcohol regardless of whether they are open 6 days a week or 7. There might be a slight increase, but not enough to outweigh the additional costs of being open for another day (especially when that likely means hiring an additional employee since it's easier to find someone to work 6 days a week than every single day without a break). In summary, Sunday sales restrictions may have started for religious reasons, but they continue to exist because it provides enormous benefits to small business owners.### Assistant: Great comment. You're right - the arguments against allowing Sunday liquor sales in Minnesota are mostly being made by liquor store owners. I don't follow the debate super closely, but I haven't ever actually heard anyone make a religious argument for continuing to disallow them. And you're right about the liquor store demand. The only situation where they will see an overall increase in sales is when you are having a Sunday event that you plan to buy alcohol for, and that alcohol will all be consumed that day (i.e. you aren't "stocking up"), AND you forgot to do it earlier. Today, most people just buy it on Saturdays, so the stores only miss out on the people that forgot. And once you've spent a few weeks or months in Minnesota, if you like to drink, you stop forgetting.### Human: Former Minnesotan here (currently an Iowan, but in a couple weeks I'll be a transplant to Colorado). I think this whole nonsense could be avoided by less restrictive blue laws (see: almost every state surrounding MN). In Iowa grocery stores and gas stations can sell beer above 3.2, wine and hard liquor (though I think some communities have more restrictive rules, this is allowed state-wide). It seems to me that it just changes the liquor-store dynamic, in MN the liquor stores are the go-to places for actual alcohol, in Iowa there are still dedicated liquor stores because gas stations, smaller grocery stores and convenience stores have poor selection and high prices (this is the cost of convenience I suppose) and those places would (mostly) be open Sundays anyways. If you want something new, out of the ordinary, need to order something in or want more options as far as sizes, and pay less for it, you go to a dedicated liquor store.### Assistant: There are actually some gas stations in MN that are allowed to sell 3.2 beer on Sundays, and on weekdays past 10PM. They're few and far between because I assume that it's expensive to get a license, but I've never seen that brought up once in the debate of Sunday liquor sales. I can think of 2 that are within a 10 minute drive for me.

### Human: CMV: Trump's campaign is shallow and comprised entirely of a populist personality cult and large helpings of nonsense and bigotry.### Assistant: All of his position details are [published in detail](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions). He knows if he starts rattling these off to a reporter, no one will pay attention. Say something non-PC? Media goldmine### Human: There's literally only 5 policies... There was more detail than I was expecting but still, you can't make an informed decision about a candidate over 5 policies that that have published details on.### Assistant: Especially when the core part of his biggest strategy, declaring China a currency manipulator to for them to strengthen the Yuan,is policy that would have made sense a decade ago. The Chinese Yuan is currently overvalued and China is spending massive amounts of its foreign reserves to keep the Yuan from tumbling. He's right that there are massive non-tariff barriers to doing business in China, but he's a decade late on the currency manipulation thing and that makes him sound like a moron to anybody who follows global economics.### Human: Is the yuan actually overvalued? You'llneed to produce sources for that because I am used to hearing about the yuan being undervalued. China's currency has been going up in value recently, which is not a symptom of being overvalued. If the yuan was actually overvalued China's economy would be in a terrible place. However, my understanding is that even though the stock market is doing very badly, investors aren't trying to get rid of RMB investments. Also since China has the worlds largest foreign cash reserves ($260 billion) and therefore a good deal of control over the value of their currency, why would they overvalue their currency? Undervaluing the CNY makes Chinese products more competitive globally, while overvaluing it... Leads to a certain collapse? Seems like a bad policy move in my opinion.### Assistant: There is a large sell-http://assets.amuniversal.com/ee20e230ab37013339300off of Chinese assets and China is using its foreign reserves to prop of those values. On mobile right now but I will come back and edit woth a source to show China eating into its foreign reserves. http://assets.amuniversal.com/ee20e230ab3701333930005056a9545d The first sentence explains that China is so low on foreign reserves right now that they can no longer prop up the Yuan.

### Human: I don't believe that "terrorists" are a threat to the US, and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. CMV### Assistant: You're mostly right, but the big exception is nuclear weapons. If terrorists actually did manage to procure a nuclear bomb and detonate it in a city, it would be utterly devestating--the kind of thing you can't afford to have happen even once. This is a significant challenge for them to pull off, but there are enough loosely secured weapons from the old Soviet Union that plenty of reasonable people are concerned about the possibility. Even less serious options, like a [dirty bomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb), could potentially do a lot of damage economically.### Human: Which really just means that the entropy of the human race is pretty high, and unless we ban learning, nuclear fission, and how to construct a weapon from it, will eventually become pretty elementary and basic college level material.### Assistant: the general theory already is basic college level material. hell, i learned it in high school AP chemistry. the issue is not them knowing how to make a bomb, it's procuring the resources to make a bomb. acquiring weapons grade uranium and plutonium is no easy task, and takes years to complete. uranium and plutonium aren't the only elements you need, though. many obscure isotopes are needed to create the trigger bomb. if you want a little more information on this topic, see: http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/nso/docs/fy07/LA-UR-07-3211_Nuclear_Weapons_Development_From_Decision_to_Delivery.pdf### Human: Assuming the Terrorists already had uranium, it would take between 700K and 1 million to acquire the necessary hardware and between 20-30 engineers/scientists working to put it together into a nuclear bomb according to this [documentary.](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/) I'm no expert myself, but I believe that means the only real shot they have at a nuclear attack is by acquiring the ready-to-go weapons from someone else. Problem is, everyone with nukes hates Al Qaeda. Iran (who is close) hates Al Qaeda. Bin Laden tried to take out the government of Pakistan, so there is no love there. Israel is obviously a no-go. No one with nukes is on the side of Al Qaeda. Even the premise of the Iraq war (Iraq has WMD and could give them to Al Qaeda) was stupid considering Al Qaeda attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein and one of Osama's goals was taking Saddam out. They were enemies (and if anything Osama was happy we overthrew Saddam). I'm sure Al Qaeda would have loved to have been able to acquire nukes... but no one with nukes would ever ever want them to have them; because everyone with nukes was Al Qaeda's enemy.### Assistant: In the same documentary they talk about all the organizations needing to do is steal some unsecured enriched uranium (Like jumping a fence cutting a padlock and taking some out of a shed. Yup that happened.) Acquire an old artillery gun and bam you got your self a nuke. Not easy but certainly doable.### Human: That happened like, literally right after the Soviet Union fell and shit was all in disarray. Russia's got its' shit together since then.

### Human: I think feminism is a radical movement and it actually has a negative impact in respect of equality. CMV.### Assistant: >Don't give me the "feminism is not about that, you're wrong" speech. It is about how women are better and it mostly provides the same inflamatory speech about oppression and/or animales. Do you think it's possible to cherry-pick examples of the most radical members of any group, and then use those examples to generalize across a larger group as if they were representative? Say, Christians. Or atheists. Or liberals. Or conservatives. Or men's rights activists. Or feminists. Or [your choice]. Do you think it would be difficult to take any of those groups -- or any other that you chose -- and find a few self-identifying members who say idiotic things? Do you think it's reasonable to hold people responsible for the words and actions of others on the basis that they may have *some* beliefs in common?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: >"I think that the hate speech of some feminist activists is bad for women in general". Sure, if that's what you meant, I'd wholeheartedly agree -- In the same way that the hate speech of some [men/racial groups/religious affiliations/nationalities/cultures/sports fans] is bad for their respective groups in general. We can all be judged poorly if we're judged by the actions of others over which we have no control, and feminism isn't exempt from that.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: That's exactly what cahpahkah is referring to. Those are extremist, self-centered idiots who don't know what they are talking about. Most feminist are just regular people on the streets, and because they don't go to youtube and make asinine loud comments, you never hear them. You only hear the vocal extremist because they are extremist. Don't listen to them. Don't give them the attention they want. I know if I saw that video my blood would go boiling, but I haven't. I won't subject myself to that kind of stupid useless rants. Equality is such an important subject this idiots don't even deserve a footnote.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: And that's the problem with definitions. And that's why some people don't want to be called feminism, because it gets associated with those crazy people rambling on the streets.

### Human: CMV: Jon Carpenters The Thing is the scariest and most dangerous horror monster to date.### Assistant: I would argue the demon from The Exorcist would by far be the "scariest" horror villain. In The Thing we know that we can blood test those that have been taken by the thing, and we know we can physically kill the alien thing. So as bad as it might be the spread of those that have been assimilated would be comparable to a disease epidemic that could be defeated. Take that against Pazuzu. Although demonic possession eventually shows up with the tell tale signs of it (for the world it's in) no doctor can initially figure it out. And although eventually an exorcism drives the demon out of the girl the demon is not permanently defeated or destroyed, since we know Father Merrin has fought him before. We also know that the exorcism doesn't always work. Even though Merrin has defeated Pazuzu before this time he is killed in the confrontation with him, so there is clearly no set path to even temporary victory. And we know the demon can compel people to do pretty much whatever it wants, with Regan having killed while possessed and Father Karras killing himself rather than risk Pazuzu compelling him to hurt Regan. So in the end the demon is immortal and can never be permanently defeated, could show up in anyone, anywhere in the world at any time and make them do whatever it wants, and there is no way to necessarily know there's a demon in them at all. When you compare that to the Thing being able to be scientifically tested for and can only spread among immediate populations Exorcist Demon > The Thing from The Thing### Human: ∆ Aha! I don't agree with all your points, but I concede that demonic possessions are a good addition to my bastion of bad ass monsters for most of the reasons you listed. I concur for example that possession fits the bill of being 'lurking within', are ultimately unbeatable, and underlining that humans are the ultimate thing to fear. I do feel that monsters that abide by rules are generally weaker - The Warlock, demons, It Follows, though you're right that the demonic possessions in the Exorcist films underline how powerful and random the demonic forces can be.### Assistant: Since this is just a for fun little debate I'm just curious what points of mine would you disagree with me on?### Human: The thing that makes the demon in the exorcism scary to me is the psuedo-omniscience it displays with messing with the people around it's victims, laying bare all the sins and flaws of those people. This is calling back to the 'people are the thing to be feared'. Additionally, possessions can pop up anywhere which makes them as random and effectively 'hidden' as the Thing or a xenomorph laying in wait. Since demons are ultimately never defeated, but only driven back temporarily, they're also able to resurface whenever and wherever. I think what makes demonic possessions less scary is that they're bound by rules (can be exorcised, have documented weaknesses, etc), and often portrayed as being 'discovered', and then basically imprisoned in the attic or cellar or whatever. This makes their collateral fairly small.### Assistant: I suppose I would concede movie demons on screen damage usually is fairly small. But it could be interpreted as more ominous though. In the Exorcist we see them bring Regan to the psychiatrist and ultimately bring in the exorcists because as a young girl she is displaying completely inexplicable behavior and a drastic sudden change in personality. So they are able to identify the possession, but even then only after they have ruled everything in medical science out. The implication could be that the demon could take some guy off the street who lives alone, compel him to go on a violent crime spree, but because no one had a view to see a sudden and drastic turn no one would ever have even known it was a demon that really did it.### Human: > The implication could be that the demon could take some guy off the street who lives alone, compel him to go on a violent crime spree, but because no one had a view to see a sudden and drastic turn no one would ever have even known it was a demon that really did it. Part of the premise for the movie Fallen. > After witnessing the execution of serial killer Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas), whom he arrested, police detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington), and his partner, Jonesy (John Goodman), are soon investigating another murderer whose mode of operation is eerily similar... Dun dun dun...### Assistant: I loved this movie, and if the demon was more... malicious... I think it would have been REALLY scary. The inclusion of the Stones 'Sympathy for the Devil', a song I absolutely love, made the film less scary to me, as it made me view the demon as more a troublemaker and mover and shaker than a 'force of corruption and destruction'.

### Human: CMV: Nuclear weapons are evil and the UK should scrap them for good### Assistant: The primary reason the UK is currently protected from nuclear strike is that it falls under the ambit of protection by the United States military. Both the large US nuclear arsenal and the large conventional forces at the US's disposal. It is unquestioned that if a foreign government nuked London, that the US Marines and/or a US ICBM would shortly arrive at that foreign government's doorstep. This alliance is likely to survive for the next few decades, but it's not a guarantee it'll survive forever. If Westminster/Washington relations break down some point in the future, it is possible the UK could lose that protection. And that would be a poor time to be attempting to rebuild a nuclear arsenal, since the combination of worsening US relations and an active nuclear weapons development programme could turn the UK into a pariah state.### Human: I don't buy at all that the primary reason the UK is safe is because it is "protected" by the US. The UK, while not having a military anywhere near the size of the US, could put up a very good fight against most other countries. There's also the fact that the UK is very hard to attack due to it's geographic location, as well as being only of only ~8 countries in the world with nuclear weapons capabilities.### Assistant: Again, my point was not about what happens 5 years from now, but what happens 30+ years from now. How many nuclear powers will there be in 2044? How many of them will have ballistic missile technology?### Human: well, you might not change anyone's view but you have successfully scared the piss out of me.### Assistant: If it makes you feel any better, people were saying the same thing in the 80s and it is 30 years later.### Human: [And the 60s.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw)

### Human: I think cemeteries are a complete waste of space. CMV.### Assistant: The problem is that you think cemeteries are for the dead. Heck, it's not even for the mourning who go maybe once or twice. It's for those who are living and happy. I went to my local cemetery, sat on a fallen tree and read for two hours. I saw a number of bicyclists and joggers. Cemeteries are parks with purpose. What society needs is to get rid of it's cemetery-phobia.### Human: Wow, I never thought of cemeteries this way. Also, why isn't your comment in caps?### Assistant: OH, SO NOW I HAVE TO TYPE EVERYTHING IN CAPS. I'M SORRY I'M NOT A MULTIFACETED PERSON WHO NEEDS TO FALL BACK ON CHEAP GIMMICKS TO IMITATE PROFUNDITY! SO AS I WAS SAYING, YOU REALLY SHOULD GO FOR A WALK ACROSS A CEMETERY AND THINK OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. WATCH THESE TWO VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X6q7nt15uk AND IT'S ANSWER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-cdcb5gYt0### Human: Jeez, didn't think you'd get so worked up about that. What's with the CAPS?### Assistant: See username.### Human: Wait, why wasn't *that* comment in caps?### Assistant: OH SO I HAVE TO STAY IN CHARACTER THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME DO I!?!?!

### Human: CMV: I do not believe finding religion should be a point of clemency when it comes to prisoners specifically for early release.### Assistant: I can't find the full documents, but here are 3 abstracts for studies dealing with religion and recidivism: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418829700093251 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v35n03_02 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v22n01_07 There is evidence that religion does have a positive effect on recidivism rates for prisoners. Aside from that, if a prisoner adopts a certain religion while in prison, it can help them once they're out since religious institutions can provide support and a sense of community for former criminals which can then help them to better acclimate into society. If they show that they want to continue their religious beliefs outside of prison, then it gives them a religious community to join which can help them stay out of trouble.### Human: And these same benefits are unable to be had with secular support institutions? Everything you said was focused on the social support aspects of a religious group. Not on a point that religion innately offers something that can be gotten without. So no, religious acceptance should not be a mitigating factor on release from jail. Unless finding comparable non-religious support is as well. For some reason I bet many judges, commissions, etc will not see it that way with atheism, secularism, and non-religion being the reason for nuclear winters, climate change, crime, and disease. Also, it ignores the fact that there are a greater percentage of religious believers in prison than in the general population. But we better make sure all those non-believers leave as believers. We want them back for the money the private prison makes from the state.### Assistant: I completely understand where you're coming from. However, there is a significant lack of rehabilitation programs in the prison system that don't involve religion. In the US at least, religious prison programs are the more successful with recidivism rates because there really aren't that many other options. I would be excited if the prison system were to implement similar programs that the religious groups do. However, they don't, and it ends up contributing a great deal, regardless if they are trying to push whatever religion they represent. The religious groups provide a significant amount of support once prisoners reach the "outside": jobs, housing, etc. There's next to no system in place providing anywhere near the same support from anyone else.### Human: But that was not the question. I did not argue that. In fact, I stated that that is what /u/guy278 said, more or less. I pointed out that he explicitly pointed to the exact things that would help that might be brought into effect by gaining a religious peer group, but that those things were **not** *in and of themselves religious*. Thus, if a person cannot get the same dispensation for finding other forms of support, then there should not be dispensation for becoming religious. It is discrimination then. Well what do you mean Shiredragon? Simple. Let's say that it is a minimum security place so visiting is not too major an issue. The convict regains a strong family connection that had been severed years ago due to a family argument. The convict gets involved in, say, a poetry group and intends to attend the weekly meetings once out. The convict also has been teaching him/herself some business via online courses. Hits all the main points. If this person gets the same treatment, then religious dispensation would be fine. But it would not be because of religion. It would be because of the associated assumed support that is hoped to come with that religion. But let's say the person mentions that they became a staunch atheist. (Stupid to do if you know the irrational association religious persons have of atheists in the US, but the convict does it.) I bet this person would get a more negative review. Not just neutral. Probably worse than when they came in without all the added details. Who knows, perhaps they get lucky and get an open-minded review board. That would not be reflective of the average population and their views of atheism though. Religion has an unearned badge of honor. And you are viewed as a lesser person if you don't subscribe to it.### Assistant: One of my uncles works for [Prison Fellowship](http://www.prisonfellowship.org/). I don't agree with a lot of the religious stuff that they do, but they change lives. They're able to connect with people on a level that I can't really understand. A few of my cousins have been to jail, and after getting into the programs offered by it, they changed their lives around. Prison Fellowship is probably one of the closest things to a prison rehabilitation program that is around. It's almost completely donor funded, and they provide counseling, skills training, more counseling, and provide a massive support network. From what I've seen, aside from when religion tries to involve itself in politics, it does a hell of a lot of good. They have programs with jobs, living arrangements, and just having someone they trust to talk to once they get out. And guidance counseling. I think it's a great program, even though they're promoting a religious belief. But in the end, is it so bad if someone finds religion and they turn their life around?### Human: And how is that making any difference to what I stated. Yeesh, I better quote myself since I keep getting people not reading it. >So no, religious acceptance should not be a mitigating factor on release from jail. Unless finding comparable non-religious support is as well. How does all of what you just said contradict what I just said?

### Human: I think that subreddits should not be allowed to hide the voting arrows with CSS to non-subscribers. CMV### Assistant: It's interesting that you think people do it to boost the subscriber count (and that would make sense), but I was mostly under the impression that a certain type of subreddit might do this to deter the less serious users. In other words, you'd have to subscribe in order to participate, and by subscribing you're putting up with content that you don't like and would be tempted to cause arguments over. Of course this won't put a lot of people off.### Human: This would be plausible for very serious subreddits (many of which are just private with approved submitters), and like you said it wouldn't deter very many people-- so while it's a nice stated goal, I doubt there are really any cases where it's the *true* goal. Plus, a lot of the subreddits that use it (/r/dataisbeautiful, for instance, which sort of cut back at my request but still has some of it in place) are not that type of place where only "serious users" should be allowed to participate.### Assistant: I don't think anyone would expect it to work in all cases, even the odd occasion of it working might be enough for some. I won't name which one, but I was linked to a discussion in a certain subreddit once, and I would have commented on it had it not required me to subscribe to them. It just wasn't worth the effort of subscribing and then unsubscribing to me. While I wouldn't have caused any trouble in that subreddit, there might be situations in which it would prevent it. Some is better than none.### Human: I don't know... to me that's just making an excuse for allowing it. Even in the largest subreddits, how often would this happen? Once or twice a day, tops? And the cost would be people having to deal with subscribing whether they want to or not just to post. If this was the only concern, it wouldn't be an issue at all because those posts are easy to catch. Real troublemakers are going to do anything to be a problem, so this won't deter the real source of the issue.### Assistant: What about the subreddits using it that you really wouldn't expect to care about their subscriber count?### Human: Like what?### Assistant: Well, I think it would be prudent to pose the opposite question; why would a subeddit care about its subscriber count at all? As long as it has regular activity, why would they care whether it has 20,000 or 200,000? There's the chance that it goes Default, but the chances of that are astronomically low, and if you're not at "regular activity" level yet, using NoParticipation isn't going to help. Activity > sub count.

### Human: CMV: If an "ethical vegetarian" is served a beef burger instead of a veggie burger by accident, it is more morally permissible to eat it.### Assistant: Assuming that any decision exists in a vacuum, separate from the rest of life, then I agree. It's a fun thought experiment but it breaks down when applied to a context. (A) The person who incorrectly provided the burger does not experience negative reinforcement if the burger is not returned. This creates a situation where the mistake can recur. (B) The vegetarian who eats the burger might actually enjoy it. They may enjoy it so much that they will chose to eat meat on purpose. This would create an internal conflict between the impulses a person has and the intention to lead a life which is moral by their own standards. (C) Eating the burger makes the vegetarian complicit in the mistake. I hate anecdotes but... In high school my friend once shoplifted a game that he knew I wanted. He didn't even have the console & couldn't use it. He wasn't going to return the game if I didn't take it. But I didn't take it. *He* had stolen. Accepting a stolen game did not make *me* a thief, but it would make me complicit in something that I didn't want to be a part of.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I would like to answer this a long-time vegetarian. A.) I agree with you entirely about not throwing it away, but you are missing quite a lot of alternatives. What I do when this happens is tell the establishment this: "I ordered a vegetarian dish because I do not eat meat. You mistakenly gave me a non-vegetarian dish. I would like what a ordered, but only if I am able to keep this dish as well at no charge. I cannot accept this dish being disposed of so I will give it to a friend or someone who will eat it. If you are unwilling to give it to me while fixing my order. I will take this dish and give it to someone else and I dont want my meal replaced." I do this to avoid the meat being wasted as it would be much more offensive to me than it being eaten. B.) This I think you are completely wrong. I have been vegetarian for 15 years, but I know myself well enough that I absolutely will not eat any meat even in circumstances like this, simply because I don't want to make it a habit and let my willpower slip. C. meh.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: As a 9-year vegetarian, trust me it's not McDonald's that you'll miss, it's actual good meat.

### Human: I do not believe that atheism is any more logical than religion CMV### Assistant: The point being that you can't assume something exists without evidence. Theres also no evidence that the mole people are living in an invisible space ship behind the moon....it doesn't mean that we need to assume they could be. The point being is that lack of evidence is how we determine is something is real or not. If I have a tumor and go to the doctor and they don't find it cancerous they don't say "Its not cancerous but that doesn't mean the cancer doesn't exist".### Human: Science does it all the time. Remember, Troy at one point was a myth, and laughed at by scientists..until someone went to look for it.### Assistant: and they found it. Which means they proved it existed. Understand the difference?### Human: If one man who rejected the scientific community's judgment w/o inspection had not, it would still be there. Better yet, he used directions from the bible to find it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_campaigns### Assistant: This has nothing to do with the scientific communities judgement. Present the data that proves your claim and the scientific community will gladly accept it. There is no evidence for god. If you have evidence for god then please link me cause i'd absolutely love to be proven wrong in this. Would be exciting quite honestly.### Human: Yes, but stating that God does not exist at all is different that stating that there is no evidence that God does exist. Secondly, athiesm != the scientific community. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.### Assistant: > Atheism is the belief that God does not exist Aaannd thats not correct Atheism is the LACK of belief of God(s) very different### Human: If you believe that god is merely improbably, then you are of the same exact belief as me. But that, at least under merrian webster and wikipedia, is agnosticism. So for the sake, of this argument (or at least what's going to CMV anyways) atheists believe that God does not exist (which is what M-W and wikipedia define them as)### Assistant: Just want to point that that out since its not similar also i make no claim or belief of such a god to exist so I pay no mind. Definitions can be ambiguous unless we see these same definitions as we intend to. edit: a word

### Human: CMV: being against Islam does not make somebody racist, because Islam is a religion, not a race.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Just out of curiosity... I don't personally believe in Islam, but I don't have a problem with people who are Muslim, regardless of their race (and I recognise people from many different races are Muslim)... I think people should be able to practise their beliefs provided they aren't hurting anyone. Does that make me racist?### Assistant: It really depends..you seem very focused on the word racist. If you see a man with a lot of facial hair some kind of headdress and a robe would you automatically treat him differently? That's being racist since you don't know his religion yet. However, I would say that while treating people of different religions poorly isn't technically "racist", it is prejudiced and should be avoided. Treat each individual differently based on who they are as a person!### Human: I'm focused on the word racist cuz I can't seem to wrap my head around being accused of being racist for not liking or agreeing with Islam for myself personally, when I don't actually have problems with Muslims at all and respect they're entitled to their opinion even though I disagree with it. I try to be a fair and kind person and it bothers me that I could somehow be being racist (I don't want to be racist - it's unkind!) simply for not agreeing with a belief system but still respecting the person who holds it. If I'm racist for that, I want to change myself, but to change myself, I need to understand why I'm being racist first. I personally don't care what people wear or make any preconceived notions about it that I'm consciously aware of (although subconsciously I bet I do, everyone's biased to some degree). I myself have walked around in public in my pyjamas (to shops and everything) cuz I view clothing as material items to protect myself from the cold and protecting others from being offended by my nudity. I only wear professional clothing to work because my policy says I have to and I need an income to survive. To answer your question directly, how do I even know the man is religious? He might not even have a religion... With respects to Muslims, I seriously find Islam a harmless religion overall, I just don't like most religions cuz I find them restrictive and I don't like that for myself personally. But if people want to think differently from me, that's cool, I want people to live their lives in a way that makes them happy.### Assistant: Okay let me outline a situation for you. Let say you're the hiring manager at your company. An applicant comes in who is qualified, has a great interview, etc. but clearly has a very Arabic sounding name. The man is most probably Muslim. Do you treat this individual any differently? It is situations like the one above I would be careful of. Not all racists are comparable to Hitler and the KKK. In our modern society racism/prejudice is often extremely subtle. Something as simple as not hiring Muslims, or always thinking that the Muslim employee isn't deserving of a promotion, etc.### Human: No, I wouldn't treat him differently... just cuz he has one belief he has that's different to mine isn't a reason to judge. I think Islam is harmless so I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't hire a Muslim.### Assistant: Then no you're not being intentionally prejudiced/racist. I would also warn you that the VAST majority of people (myself included) have subconscious prejudices against other humans for a variety of reasons. Learning about yourself and where you have inherent prejudices will help you grow as a person and make better decisions in your personal life and career. Don't think this is an attack on you, it's not. Most humans benefit from learning where they are biased. It is a common undertaking for employees of more successful companies.### Human: I've just had someone else point out to me I'm misusing the term "anti-Islam." To clarify my own position on Islam, just so you understand what I mean since I've misused the term, I personally choose not to practise Islam because I don't believe it's the right lifestyle for me, but I don't try and stop other Muslims from practising their religion or call for bans on it or anything. I don't have a problem with Muslims themselves, I just don't want to adopt the practises of Islam to my own lifestyle cuz I disagree with it, but I respect they have a right to adopt the belief system as they see fit. Now, to respond to your first comment properly (sorry, I didn't really get into it before), are you saying that many people who are anti-Islam assume most people from the Middle East are Muslims and then treat them badly for it cuz they have a problem with Islam? And that they are intolerant of Islam? I do think I probably have subconscious prejudices about various things (I think all humans have biases!) but I'm probably just not aware of them and I need to reflect more. Thank you for your advice!### Assistant: Yeah I think I would just use a different phrase outside of "anti-Islam" if I were you. Most people will not understand your true meaning through that phrase. I'm not saying "most" people. All I'm saying is if you have blanket feelings that "Islam is bad" in your head then it wouldn't be surprising if you subconsciously treat Muslims slightly worse than you would others. Again not a big deal, but it's good for all of us to self reflect. For example I know I have a bias against people who are obese. It's something I work on weekly.### Human: I am awarding you a delta ∆ The reason for awarding you a delta is because you've helped me understand the following: How subtle and subconscious biases related to negatively viewing Islam can be How people who view Islam negatively could judge Muslims through their appearance (for example, clothing) - and how this is tied specifically to middle eastern appearance, relating the concept of Islam to race How this could in turn could negatively affect other aspects of a muslims life### Assistant: Nice having a discussion with you!### Human: It's been fabulous, thank you for providing me with such patient and easy to understand, knowledgeable responses!### Assistant: Of course, stay as open minded and self aware as you are now you'll do well for yourself!

### Human: CMV: ebooks shouldn't cost more than 5dollars. Anything above just hinders education, culture and technological advance.### Assistant: My father is a retired engineering professor. Quite a few years ago, he decided to write a textbook because he was tired of teaching from books he didn't like. He spent over 6 months writing it. Besides actually writing, he had to search for the images to put into it, get approvals to use the images, work with artists to draw diagrams. After it was written, there were months of back-and-forth with his editor. All told, I'm sure there was over a year's effort spent on it. When he was finished, his was one of many similar books on the topic on a fairly specialized topic. He also refused to release multiple editions (which are mostly done to make the earlier versions obsolete, so students can't but used books). So, let's do the math. [There were 19,000](http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf) Mechanical Engineering students in 2011. Let's say you have an extremely popular book that's used by 25% of them (or 4750 students). Let's give the book a 10 year life. With your $5 that's a maximum of $237,500 earned from the book (assuming every student buys one every year). Except, of course, [the author only makes 12% of that](http://blog.taaonline.net/2009/05/textbook-contracts-how-to-determine-a-good-royalty-rate-offer/). So, with a book popular enough to be used by 25% of all Mechanical Engineering students for 10 years, the author would take home $28,500 for a year of their life. Not a great payback for someone with a PhD. And if you weren't fortunate enough to have a popular book... then you really get shafted.### Human: ∆ I still think the book should be somewhat cheaper, ok maybe 5dollars is too little for a tech book with little market. But it shouldn't be so expensive. Good argument there get your 100 ∆ delta thingy### Assistant: Yahoo! Thanks!### Human: Also just wanted to add that a lot of what we programmers do is open source and really without free information and knowledge the world would be in a worst state that it's right now.### Assistant: Sure, but it's not really free. The developers are getting paid by someone. Certainly Oracle's model on the legacy Sun products that are still free is the make their money on consulting for implementations. Others do it for PR, or leverage the crowdsourcing of open source to get the framework they use in their licensed software.### Human: come on github is full of opensource projects, many people do free tutorials and courses online. Yes there might be some kind of retribution, make a portfolio, for showing of skills, but it's free nevertheless. Linux devs aren't paid in their majority. Also there are a lot of dev adhering to the GNU philosophy. Not everything has to be paid and compensated that's how crowdsourcing works.### Assistant: Linux devs are paid for developing linux http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report 75 % to be exact.### Human: OK I didn't know that. But linux began as an open source project which the original contributors made for free it's all in Linus Torvalds biography book I can't remember the title.

### Human: CMV: The Criminal Code Improvement Act of 2015 is a good idea.### Assistant: Regarding the regulation part of it. There are a number of issues where a large set of people cycle through doing the action, and any one person might possibly be reasonably expected to not know that there's a regulation against it, but which nonetheless causes problems when it's done by a lot of people. Warning off those people doesn't undo the damage that they do. Pollution and spam email are good examples of these. Regulations against these are trying to solve a whack-a-mole problem, and they are relatively expensive to police, yet they really do cause actual problems. Why should not the violators of these regulations be the ones to pay for this whack-a-mole policing? Why should we have to catch the same person twice, and is that a reasonable expectation for law enforcement to have to take? Furthermore, these kinds of rules create an unfortunate incentive for people to remain ignorant of things that they shouldn't be doing. Finally, a "reasonable person" standard isn't reasonable when it comes to regulations that apply to a particular industry, where the people in that industry can and should be expected to research the rules that apply to that industry. A random "reasonable person" might not be expected to know that a particular pesticide is illegal, but a farmer really should.### Human: I don't find this persuasive, because I think the problem is smaller than you're saying and there are many other methods for solving the problem. 1. You can still have civil penalties for violating regulations. This is strictly about criminal prosecution, i.e. putting people in prison. If you break a regulatory rule you can still be assessed a big penalty in a civil suit. 2. The "reasonable person" test means a reasonable person in the defendant's position. So if it's a regulation relating to stockbrokers, the government can show it was on the licensing exam and therefore a reasonable stockbroker would know the regulation required X. There are other ways too, such as if the government requires the pesticide come with a warning sheet about when it's legal and when it's not, which would put the user on notice about the potential regulatory violation.### Assistant: A fine print notice that no one reads (really, no one reads these) would not be "known to a reasonable person". So how is it even *possible* to regulate anything if proving violating the regulation requires proving that a "reasonable person" would know and also that they person did not know? How, too, is it even possible to have a standard about whether a reasonable person in a similar position knows about a regulation? Is a poll required of all people in similar positions to the violator? How do you qualify "similar position"? The jury isn't going to be people in a similar position to the offender. So how will they know? If the prosecution brings in 10 stock brokers who all testify that they knew about the regulation, does that prove that a "reasonable stockbroker" knows about the regulation? The "reasonable person" standard only makes sense when you're talking about things where every human is considered a "reasonable person". I.e. where the jury can be reasonably expected to make that decision based on their own knowledge, ethics, etc., by mentally putting themselves in the person's shoes. Saying that "assault" requires that a "reasonable person" would consider the action to put the victim at risk of life or limb is one thing.### Human: >A fine print notice that no one reads (really, no one reads these) would not be "known to a reasonable person". This would be a question of fact for the jury to decide. >So how is it even possible to regulate anything if proving violating the regulation requires proving that a "reasonable person" would know and also that they person did not know? The standard of knowing violation is used all the time in the law. The government routinely has to prove what people knew in order to prosecute them for a crime. >How, too, is it even possible to have a standard about whether a reasonable person in a similar position knows about a regulation? Is a poll required of all people in similar positions to the violator? How do you qualify "similar position"? The jury isn't going to be people in a similar position to the offender. So how will they know? >If the prosecution brings in 10 stock brokers who all testify that they knew about the regulation, does that prove that a "reasonable stockbroker" knows about the regulation? The prosecution certainly could use expert testimony to show that others in a similar situation would have known this was illegal. They can also use common sense, such as by arguing that anyone would know you can't enrich yourself at your client's direct expense. They can also get your emails and text messages showing what you were saying at the time. Further, the "reasonable person" test is used in respect to prosecution and talking about people's specific situations all the time. For instance, here is a California case where [expert testimony about battered women's syndrome was allowed to make a point about the reasonableness of the defendant's actions in context.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9566017733093582200&q=reasonableness+training+manslaughter&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33) I think the reasonable person standard is well worn in the law and there's a lot of caselaw to guide the courts. To me, it seems sensible to apply this standard to areas where the legislature hasn't actually defined the crime. If Congress defines the crime specifically, then ignorance is no defense. It's only a defense to one of the many thousands of regulations published every year. Your example of spamming is inapt, because [the criminal prohibition on spamming was written into law by Congress.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1037)### Assistant: > To me, it seems sensible to apply this standard to areas where the legislature hasn't actually defined the crime. Why is the legislature any more likely to produce laws that people won't understand or know about than a regulatory agency? Congress *does* pass laws allowing any regulatory agency specifically to create regulations, and even specifically allows them to assess criminal penalties. Basically, I really don't see the difference between a law Congress passes and a regulation the FCC passes. Indeed, there's often more formal public review of the FCC regulations than of Congressional laws. And, indeed, the law requires them to have public review of their regulations... why can the public not be presumed to know about them, but somehow can be presumed to know about the thousands of laws Congress passes? If there is a public notice of the regulation, and a public comment period, and then publication of the regulation, and that is not sufficient for a reasonable person to be expected to know about it, what possible notice *could* be sufficient? If the FCC mailed a copy of their regulations to every person in the U.S., would we all be expected to know about them?### Human: > Indeed, there's often more formal public review of the FCC regulations than of Congressional laws. I personally find the notice period that regulatory agencies have to be little more than theater. The regulatory bodies have no legal requirement, in most instances, to heed the comments. The commissioners of those bodies are almost always appointed and not elected. Even worse, those commissioners are much smaller in number than Congress allowing as few as 3 people to decide on new "laws". In 2007 [Congress enacted 138 public laws while regulatory agencies made 2926 rules including 61 major regulations](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html). While the wording of Congressional acts may be no more coherent than a regulatory agency's rule, at least Congressional laws are passed by our actual representatives. Further still, they're passed by two separate houses. When we're talking about crimes like murder and theft it is completely reasonable to say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but [when the crime is importing lobsters that come in plastic bags](https://ideatransfuser.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/from-lobster-importing-to-prison-a-story-of-violation/) I think ignorance of the law *should* be a pretty good excuse. [When there are so many laws that the government can't even give a count, how can any citizen be expected to know them all](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/)

### Human: CMV: I believe the Gender Pay Gap is Grossly Misstated and Misleading### Assistant: This whole phenomena has many levels, each one has a minuscule effect but at the end of day they add up. First the obvious: Depending on which study you look 6%-12% of the wage gap you cannot explain away by the more obvious factors like profession, choice, working ours etc. One definitive factor in this number is that women who apply for a typical male job are seen on average as significantly less competent as their male counterparts, even if they have the exact same qualifications, which has been [demonstrated over and over.](http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer) And considering that your received competence is a huge factor when it comes to getting the job and negotiating your salary it will of course impact your income. A similar thing happens by the way if a man applies for a typical female job, which could explain why in some rare branches the pay-gap is almost reversed. But men are less likely to work in a typical female job and those are also anyways less paid, so the effect on the overall gap in the other direction is tiny. Basically as soon as you leave your gender domain people will be critical of you. Kinda like if a electrician suddenly applies as a plumber, he can show all necessary qualifications and experience, but still they would be more critical of him than if a plumber applies for a job as a plumber. This rarely has the form of a conscious belief but lingers in basically all of us as a subconscious bias. And there you can see why the typical counterargument "If women would really payed less companies would hire them more to save money" fails, you would not hire someone who you perceive as less competent. Another factor is that women tend to be more risk averse. They are less likely to negotiate their wage and less likely to ask for a promotion. Basically women tend to play save, while men tend to prefer the boom or bust approach. This could be actually a bit influenced by biology, since [testosterone affects apparently risk evaluation in humans](https://www.cogneurosociety.org/testosterone_risktaking/). On the other hand its also hard to dismiss the way women are taught from an very early age on to be more careful, more polite, more accommodating, more gently, in short more passive than boys. Now we can talk about the more subtle "choice" part. Most women, just like most men don't even come to the idea to seriously consider working in an field that is heavily associated with the other gender. Boys who want to become a nurse are as rare as girls who want to become construction worker. Gladly this changes slowly, but gender roles are deeply ingrained in our society and affect what type of choices we "choose" to consider. The result is that most women end up working mainly in female jobs and men in male jobs. And it shouldn't take you long to realize that the most typical male jobs are better paid, sometimes quite frankly for good reasons (e.g. more dangerous). This shifts the statistic quite a bit. Another far less discussed way gender roles affect job choices is the provider role of men. Most men have the role of the main (or even whole) breadwinner hammered in their heads or at least accepted it more or less voluntary. This skews the statistic further because then men start to focus more on sole income than other factors and men start to flock towards the best paying jobs, because in back of their heads that whole provider thing is still ticking. Like you mentioned, women on the other hand tend to value other benefits, like better working hours, family friendliness of the company, childcare, maternity leave, etc more out of various reasons. The biggest reason is simply that women still do the vast majority of day to day house work even if both partners are working full time. Same goes for childcare if for example a child gets sick its typically the mother who takes them to the doc, something in school? Again the mother takes care of it. Most men still don't even consider to take maternity leave even if they have the possibility to. As to why this is I suggest you to read [this piece](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0UUYL6kaNeBTDBRbkJkeUtabEk/view?pref=2&pli=1). Basically according to typical gender roles men are responsible for the big decisions, while women are expected to handle the small everyday decisions. The problem is that there are only 24 hours in a day and somewhere you have to make room for all those small stuff. Besides that if affects their ability to compete with men, guess who gets the promotion, the guy who works extra hours or the mom who has to leave as soon as possible to pick up the kids? I could list probably more stuff, but I think I wrote already enough. Overall, while the gender pay gap is a problem in itself, its much more a indicator (or symptom if you like to call it that way) of some much deeper lying problems.### Human: What is your take on [this interview](http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473992254/on-equal-pay-day-why-the-gender-gap-still-exists) with Harvard economics professor Claudia Goldin? I think about it every time one of these discussions come up but haven't openly discussed it yet.### Assistant: She kinda says the same thing as I tried to say, the biggest chunk of the gap is attributed to what she calls "cost of temporal flexibility" which simply means making sacrifices in therms of income for the welfare of your family. Its nothing bad directly, but since gender roles didn't simply vanish into thin air after the equal pay act became a thing, it still a problem for women since they are the ones who are expected to "take one for the team" while men on the other hand still are quite hesitant in that category, hence the big difference. In addition to that, no mater which study you take, a small amount of difference still keeps existing no mater how many factors you consider to explain the gap away.### Human: Couldn't it be viewed as men "taking one for the team" by working longer hours in a more stressful less fulfilling job away from their kids?### Assistant: I guess it just depends on the person. If you're a career driven person with kids, risking a promotion to leave early occasionally is taking one for the team. If you hate your job and only do it for the paycheck then that definitely could be flipped. Or they could both be unhappy with what they're doing.

### Human: CMV: Reddit is a harmful, sensational, and rabidly bias website.### Assistant: Would you be surprised if I told you that your own post reads as rather sensational? You've abandoned a lot of nuance in your argument in favor of making broad claims about a website with a massive user base and wildly varying views. I just took a look at the front page, and most posts were entirely innocuous and apolitical. This tends to be the case. Most of reddit seems more interested in funny or interesting stuff than pushing some political agenda. The agenda people exist, but they just make up a smaller percentage, evidenced by their relatively small representation on the front page. In the case of politics, I find extreme views to be rarely supported by the majority of users. Extremely misogynistic posts get downvoted, at the same time radical feminist views tend to get downvoted. While it's a shame so many people use the downvote as a disagree button, I don't really see how you can make the claim that most redditors who vote and post have extreme views, because again, this isn't reflected in the posts which are usually the most upvoted. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they remain exceptions.### Human: Completely off topic... >While it's a shame so many people use the downvote as a disagree button I'm just curious because im relatively new to reddit... i guess? not actually... (6 months?) I see this opinion frequently, that people think the downvote button shouldnt be used just because you disagree, but isnt the upvote button the "i agree" button?### Assistant: No. The upvote is the "this adds to the discussion" button; the downvote is the opposite### Human: So, then what does upvoting OPs mean, and by extension downvoting them?### Assistant: The comment they made is a good one### Human: So then downvoting must mean the comment they made is a bad one, and we are back to what I originally said. ( I am not trying to be a douche.. it just happens :p )

### Human: Pirating isn't immoral if you would not have bought the product anyway. CMV### Assistant: The way I see it is that pirating is almost never 'morally good', but if you really would not have bought the product in the first place - if you can *honestly* say that you wouldn't have saved up for it, or even asked for it as a present then you are at least not the main problem. You might be morally 'wrong' to consume something without financially rewarding the creator, but if I create a piece of work, and people are pirating it, the ones who are harming me are the ones who would realistically have otherwise paid money for it. Now, I imagine that this is actually the majority of people who pirate. Most people will say 'I can't afford it' but what they really mean is 'I want to spend my money down the pub instead' or 'those shoes looked really sweet so I'm a bit short at the moment'. They aren't really so short of money that they couldn't have afforded your game/album/movie/whatever, and they wouldn't have avoided buying it to try it out; they just wanted to have everything. Pirating is convenient - and usually people who take the convenient route are making excuses to justify their behaviour in retrospect. You have to ask yourself whether you are doing this, or whether you are genuinely so poor that you can't be reasonably expected to pay for the things you enjoy.### Human: You make a similar point as eightwebs, though your's is (sorry eightwebs) better argued. You're right, it's not that I'm so poor that I can't afford entertainment. However, if pirating was never an option, that wouldn't make a difference. I still would not have paid the money to buy the product, because I didn't find the product worthy of the money I would have spent.### Assistant: The real problem with this argument is that it is impossible to know if you would have bought the product. It is easy to convince yourself you would never buy something, and you may be right most of the time, but you are probably misleading yourself a bit. Even among people who wouldn't outright purchase something, piracy reduces demands for media being purchased by local libraries, and it reduces demand for new services like Netflix and Hulu. Even if you are totally broke you could listen to the radio or streaming services that pay royalties. By pirating instead of taking advantage of legal, free sources you *are* depriving the musicians and producers of royalties they deserve. > This usually occurs through me buying merchandise from a musician, buying the sequel to a game, etc. If you can afford to do that, you can afford to buy the music or the game.### Human: It's a hypothetical, I'm not turning to reddit for validation. Thank you for the input though. The argument was never about whether or not I would have bought the product, or whether or not I was too broke. It was simply *if I would not buy it, it's not immoral* which has it's own flaws. /u/themcos brought the idea of respect into the argument, and in doing so changed my view.### Assistant: Another way to view it: If I sneak into a theater, I'm not stealing a copy of the movie. If I stow away on a ferry or a bus, I'm also not taking anything physical. But what I am doing is taking a service or experience for free that the provider or creator intended to monetize and pirating games/software is no different. In the case of a game, you are taking 10+ hours of entertainment that has a quantifiable price tag to it and refusing to pay; simply because you never intended to pay for it to begin with doesn't morally abdicate you of responsibility. Is it a lost sale? No. Are you taking something for free that was never intended to be free? Yes. If you want, we can get all philosophical on whether or not it's even possible to steal a service or an experience, as that's what this boils down to. But how would you feel if you were an accountant and your boss refused to pay you? You didn't produce anything physical (just the service of applying your expertise). Though you have a contract signed between the two of you, the pirates know full well that the thing they are pirating costs money and that there exists a social contract that to get this good, you must pay money, yet they willfully subvert that, too.### Human: This is essentially the line of thinking that I've recently embraced thanks to this discussion. Of relevance, here's another discussion going on here of similar ideas: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1yhd8w/pirating_isnt_immoral_if_you_would_not_have/cfles80

### Human: CMV: Human induced climate change is real.### Assistant: I bet I can make you not worried. Would that be changing your views?### Human: I don't know, it would certainly help me sleep at night. For example, if you proved that 'It is human caused, but will take 2000 years before it affects daily life', then I may be less worried and still accept that it is human-caused. The hockystick graph doesn't indicate that kind of safe time frame though. Are you just delta hunting?### Assistant: Well here's a couple of things, the hockey stick graph is based on models... Which haven't alone been able to replicate the past let alone future so far.... They've all been wrong. Which would you buy assuming they're the same car, the vehicle that goes 50 mpg or 20?### Human: > Well here's a couple of things, the hockey stick graph is based on models... Which haven't alone been able to replicate the past let alone future so far.... They've all been wrong. The assertion that the models are "wrong" is a misrepresentation of what a model is. > Which would you buy assuming they're the same car, the vehicle that goes 50 mpg or 20? By your logic... they are the same. The 50 and 20 mpg ratings are also the result of modeling. No car actually gets exactly 50 or 20 mpg, therefore these models are "wrong". If I discard both "wrong" models then both cars are the same.### Assistant: Spidertech5000 wrote privately: > So my point is the 50 mpg car is still head and shoulders more efficient, model not withstanding. Precisely. "50 mpg" isn't a prediction but a simplified calculation that allows you to compare this car with the mpg rating of another. That car may never get 50 mpg but it is understood the rating is for rough comparison to another vehicle. Saying "50 mpg" and "20 mpg" are "wrong" misses the point that they were never predictions. Their goal is to make it clear that the first car is almost certainly more fuel efficient than the second. The same is true with climate models. Calling them "wrong" because they do not reflect all the nuances of climate misses the fact that they were never predictions. They are simplified calculations useful for comparison. Multiple runs allow you to do rough outcomes between different conditions. Just as buying a 50 mpg car over a 20 mpg car does not guarantee you 1.5x the fuel efficiency, climate models saying the temperature will rise 2 degrees C by 2050 is no guarantee of that outcome. However, it is still foolish to believe that the 20 mpg car is as efficient as the 50 mpg one or that the 2050 temperature will be the same as it is today.### Human: Right but theres glaring errors that exist the 10 year hiatus come to mind. What I'm saying is life or death shouldn't exist in the vacuum of models. We're wise to do something and we are, we are creating better cleaner energies every day, but living and dying by the models is foolish. That's my sum all. And seeing as how life always gets better, we don't need to wory.we shouldn't be complacent mind you, but worrying is both worthless and futile.### Assistant: > Right but theres glaring errors that exist the 10 year hiatus come to mind. Are you referring to [the adjustments NASA made to the GISTEMP temperature product in 2015](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2015/06/05/parsing-the-details-of-the-warming-hiatus/)? To non-climateheads, there was an assertion that global warming had "stopped" in 1998 because the [NASA GISTEMP](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) product had not risen much since. NASA looked at the dataset and concluded that they were not accounting enough for artifical temperature increases with ship measurements. They adjusted the calculation and the hiatus lessened. People then claimed this was a clear case of NASA adjusting the data to show warming. > What I'm saying is life or death shouldn't exist in the vacuum of models. Nor should you by a car based on it's MPG rating. I totally agree.### Human: I don't think there's much disagreement then.

### Human: CMV: The beauty standards of models, and the effort they go through to achieve their appearance, are really no different from standards such as intelligence, leadership, or athleticism. All of these other areas cause similar harm to the harm caused by beauty standards.### Assistant: So, underlying this argument is the idea that all forms of exceptionalism impact self-esteem in the same way. Or, if not the same way, to the same degree. Or, if not to the same degree, with the same kinds of results. That where this idea goes off the rails. Let's assume, as with most things, people fall on a bell curve. Most people live in the middle, with some people being extremes on either end. You are 100% correct that for certain jobs and ambitions, you have to be on the exceptional end of the bell curve: model, CIA agent, CEO, NFL player, etc. And, since we're not really talking about it, we'll ignore the other end wherein people are unusually deficient in a particular skill. No, maybe you're not super smart. Or athletic, charismatic, good at the trumpet, or phenomenal in bed. That's okay, that's expected, most people are right in the neat middle of the bell curve. Or, rather, it SHOULD be okay. **The problem with beauty is not that the bell curve doesn't apply, it is the business scheme underwriting it that exploits the bell curve**. Yeah, I'm not a super model, never will be, that's fine. I am still attractive enough. But there are certain needs that everyone has to meet. First are food, shelter, sustenance. You have to survive. Then comes safety (no use worrying about your existential crisis if you're being chased by a lion). But then comes *love*. Belonging. Feeling included, appreciated, desirable. We all have this need, we all feel it with a biological imperative to complete it and be successful. And that makes us weak. It makes us vulnerable. The genius thing the beauty industry has done (fashion, skin care, cosmetics, hair products, etc. etc.) is use the outliers on the bell curve to distort the middle. It does this for men and women, no one gets away from this. But not JUST the outliers. Even extremely beautiful women are photo-shopped into unattainable images of perfection. By keying into that universal need, to be wanted, they create a huge market demand for a way, any way, to get that need met. The further you get from the middle, the more exaggerated and unattainable "pretty" becomes, the more products you sell. I mean, this is basic common sense. So models move further and further towards the most extreme end of the bell curve because those are the people who will sell the most diamonds, skin cream, and boots. The further you feel from perfect, the more you'll spend to raise your position. **This market doesn't exist (to the same extent) for other extremes**. Yeah, you can't be an idiot, but there's a wide range of acceptable intelligence and not a lot of money to be made in exploiting it. We encourage sports, but few people expect they'll go pro. There's money to be made there, don't be fooled (Nike, Gatorade, Adidas, REI, pick your thing) but not NEARLY as much because athletic prowess doesn't have the same imperative behind it that being loved does. The reason the beauty industry is so harmful is because it makes its money by making you feel artificially ugly and unfit. And it works so well because it taps into one of our most fundamental and biologically ingrained desires to do that.### Human: You bring up a lot of interesting points, but I don't see how any of them actually delineates between our treatment of models and our treatment of other great people. Let me offer some counter-points to the ones you do raise. > Feeling included, appreciated, desirable. We all have this need, we all feel it with a biological imperative to complete it and be successful. And that makes us weak. It makes us vulnerable. I think these feelings are just as linked to things like social skills, intelligence, leadership, creativity (eg, a kid who can sing and play the guitar is attractive to many girls even if he lacks good looks) as they are to appearance. >Even extremely beautiful women are photo-shopped into unattainable images of perfection. I think that we exaggerate the genius of great thinkers (eg Einstein, Hawking, etc) and the brilliance of our great leaders (Henry Ford, Elon Musk, and so on) just as much as we photoshop our attractive women. Even our best musicians put out music recorded on multiple separate tracks, overdubbed and mixed and polished. Our politicians make a career out of sanitizing and exaggerating their records. I don't think airbrushing and photoshopping sets models apart from the other categories. > We encourage sports, but few people expect they'll go pro. But few people expect to be professional models either. Aside from these distinctions which I don't think hold up to direct scrutiny, you make two major related points, which you bolded: >The problem with beauty is not that the bell curve doesn't apply, it is the business scheme underwriting it that exploits the bell curve. >There's money to be made...but not NEARLY as much because athletic prowess doesn't have the same imperative behind it that being loved does. The reason the beauty industry is so harmful is because it makes its money by making you feel artificially ugly and unfit. And it works so well because it taps into one of our most fundamental and biologically ingrained desires to do that. I think that attractiveness is currently in the spotlight, but I think in the real world, people consider other factors every bit as much as appearance when they evaluate their ability to be loved and desired. For example, as I mentioned above, someone with great musical talent can sidestep issues of attractiveness. Someone attractive can still sit at home and feel socially awkward, or indecisive, and have it make them feel like they're not loveable. In fact, I think if you took all of the people with low self-esteem and asked them why, many of them would give reasons not related to attractiveness. I don't think the beauty industry does any more to artifically make us feel ugly than other industries make us feel less desirable in other areas. However, this is where I'm open to being convinced. I may be wrong on that. Does beauty play a bigger role in love and relationships than intelligence, social astuteness, leadership skill, creativity, etc? Or, is the beauty industry more pervasive in its marketing and exaggerating of the trait?### Assistant: To quote /u/Exis007: > The genius thing the beauty industry has done (fashion, skin care, cosmetics, hair products, etc. etc.) is use the outliers on the bell curve to distort the middle. The **middle on the bell curve representated by the media are, in reality, the outliers**. We don't have this with others things like thinkers : **even when we exaggerate their genius, we don't think they are the middle of the curve**. The consequence is, when **you see you aren't even in the middle of the beauty curve (when you are in fact), you may think you aren't normal and try to be like the "middle"**. But considering **they are winner of the genetic lottery (when you aren't)**, you cannot attain them and **may begin to feel deseperate (when you shouldn't for the reason that you are already normal**). And this for the majority of the population.### Human: I think education is portrayed that way, as is career success. People who are actually quite successful (well paid lawyers, senior law enforcement, federal agents, etc.) are often portrayed as middle of the pack even though people in those positions are typically outliers. There are even (a few) movies about things like a teacher raising the advanced math skills of a class of high school delinquents to top-of-nation levels in one school year. And typically all that is attributed to accomplishing this great (and essentially impossible task) is that the teacher 'cared' and was 'fun' or something along those lines.### Assistant: > People who are actually quite successful (well paid lawyers, senior law enforcement, federal agents, etc.) are often portrayed as middle of the pack even though people in those positions are typically outliers. In your CMV, >The beauty standards of models, and the effort they go through to achieve their appearance, are really no different from standards such as **intelligence, leadership, or athleticism**. I agree with you about career success in media. **But we don't think a very intelligent man or a leader or an athlet is in the middle of his curve when we do think this with a top-model**. I think we admire those who have a high education but we don't see them as representative sample.### Human: First, not my CMV. But to my point - we do portray them as middle of the curve. Watson is portrayed as average intelligence even though he is well above average. In the episodes of Big Bang Theory that I've seen, Penny is portrayed as (essentially) stupid, while Leonard is average. But Penny's ability to learn and adapt is clearly well above the average person's. Leader's are often portrayed as 'average Joe's' with virtually no explanation of how they got to a leadership position - implying that the leader is 'middle of the curve' regarding abilities and discipline. How we 'see' any of these people is less the question. I don't think we see top models as middle of the curve. People believe they should be able to achieve that appearance, and there is an industry geared around telling them they can if they just buy this *one* more whateveritis. But there are industries around leadership development, physical development (supplements for example), and education (our for-profit school fits perfectly into your schedule and delivers a great education! Anyone can do it!). edit: phrasing### Assistant: > In the episodes of Big Bang Theory that I've seen, Penny is portrayed as (essentially) stupid, while Leonard is average. I really don't know what series you've been watching. Even putting aside that Leonard has a PhD from ~~MIT~~Princeton, half of the humor of the show is that Penny has more common sense (and is smarter when it comes to social situations) than most of the rest of the cast combined. She's portrayed as someone that the rest of the cast _thinks_ is stupid, but they're portrayed as being consistently wrong about that.

### Human: I think that crimes should be punished based on intent (not result) in all circumstances. CMV.### Assistant: The person who was drunk driving likely didn't intend to kill someone. Are you saying we should punish crimes based on our predicted result? So if we predict that drunk driving results in a certain number of deaths we should punish people for it? I would dislike that sort of legal framework. It gives people no real framework to do lesser crimes- if you stop trying to kill someone partway through a murder there's no point- you'll be punished the same anyway, you might as well kill them. There's no reason to drive safely as a drunk driver- you'll be punished in the same way.### Human: So you are saying that the increased punishment for the worse result provides incentive to be careful or change one's mind part way through the offence? If so I don't think having crimes punished based on intent would effect that. For instance if the man had pointed the gun but not pulled the trigger his intent would have changed so it would be a lesser offence.### Assistant: The man has time to change his mind after the gun fails to go off. If he thinks he will get the same sentence regardless of whether his wife is dead or not, then he may as well continue to attempt to murder his wife. Actually, seeing as she just saw him commit an attempted murder, he has an incentive to kill her. If there is a lesser punishment for attempted murder then there is more incentive to just stop at that failed attempt.### Human: But in that case if he had not chased her etc. after the gun failed to go off that would speak to his intent. I don't really think we disagree on this aspect of it.### Assistant: Right but after intent was shown he is better off going through with murdering his wife. After intent was shown (in your scenario) then he is already deemed a first degree murder. If he kills her at least he would have a chance of getting away from it.### Human: A good point, but i'd argue he didn't intend to kill her. He wanted to, he was going to, but he made no action to do it. Now if he had fired and missed her, then what? At that point he made an action with intent rather than just 'a thought'. I'd want him punished the same, since he actually attempted to, but failed. Why should he have a less sentence than someone with better aim?### Assistant: But again he would already be given first degree murder. Now he has no reason to let her live. But if he kills her he could have a change to get away with it since she might be the only witness. And even if she isn't what does he have left to lose? He already "committed murder" why not actually do it, you can't be sentence twice for the same crime.### Human: agreed.### Assistant: Sorry are you saying we should have attempt= murder meaning the criminal has little reason to NOT follow through or saying we SHOULDN'T have attempt=murder.### Human: I think attempt =/= muder, I was more playing devil's advocate.

### Human: CMV: There's nothing wrong with "cultural appropriation".### Assistant: borrowing certain cultural tropes without fully understanding their meaning is what is problematic - mainly when said tropes are borrowed by privileged members of a dominant culture, and they are borrowing from a culture that historically had been oppressed and undervalued. For example, when rich white kids put on black face and start twerking, and rapping, and acting black. I have heard many black writers complain about this cultural appropriation, for example Miley Cyrus, because she gets to enjoy black culture without suffering the burden of racism and oppression that black folks constantly have to live with. So much of the greatest music and art that has come out of african-american culture was inspired by the terrible suffering of slavery and racism that the people had to endure. This is why white blues and jazz musicians have to be really careful about which songs they choose to play. There are some songs, with certain emotions and context that they, as white people, can never truly understand. For example, Strange Fruit by Nina Simone, is one of my favorite, most haunting songs. But I, as a white man, could never comprehend the terror of how it felt as a black person to constantly live under the threat of being lynched by a white mob. The same can be said of white people who wear native american war bonnets or head-dresses to be ironic, or fashionable. To a native american, I imagine that the feathered head-dress is an honored, sacred piece of ritual clothing for a special person in their culture - the leader. But hipsters, who are mostly white americans, the descendents of the same people who slaughtered their ancestors, are wearing this head-dress as a form of ironic amusement. I can see how they'd be pissed off. **TL;DR: all aspects of culture come with a context. Cultural appropriation is hurtful when members of the dominant culture appropriate aspects from an oppressed culture without truly understanding its context and meaning, especially of suffering perpetrated by said dominant culture.**### Human: I used to live in Korea. In Korea, Koreans are the dominant culture; Americans are a marginalized culture. All over the place, there was Simpsons merchandise, just lots of random crap with the characters' faces pasted on it. I thought that apparently The Simpsons (the show) was big in Korea, but it wasn't. I asked Koreans about it and none of them had ever seen the show. In other words, they didn't know the context of this piece of culture. How did it hurt me (or any other American) for them to do this?### Assistant: http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-appropriation-of-cultural.html I just found this article regarding the "appropriation" of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation only recently has come to mean unjust theft of a foreign culture's artifacts. For most of its history, it merely meant borrowing. Obviously this happens everywhere, can't be avoided, and is not harmful at all. Only you can answer that question if it hurt you at all. borrowing of culture occurs both ways between cultures of equal standing, from colonizer to colonized, dominant to weaker, weaker to dominant, and every which way. Considering American culture is possibly the most dominant culture on the face of the planet, I'd say it doesn't hurt us at all - and is only a sign of our dominance that so many Koreans are mindlessly consuming Simpsons paraphernalia without understanding anything about it.### Human: So what, you think that Americans are somehow forcing the Simpsons down Korea's throat?### Assistant: Simpsonian imperialism!

### Human: CMV: If you, and you, and you, don't vote, you're a huge part of the 'Politics' Problem### Assistant: > I don't care WHO you vote for, that's not what this is about. But I do care that people are too ignorant to recognize their vote DOES matter; it's all about aggregate. Well, WHO you vote for is all that matter actually. That's the point of an election. If you are uninformed to the point where you vote for someone because you like his face, maybe you shouldn't vote. I'd say people who vote for the wrong candidate and for the wrong reasons are a bigger problem than those who don't vote. Contrary to what everyone tells you, there is not shame in not having an opinion. I have a lot more respect for those who admit it than those who have an opinion on every single things.### Human: I really like that last bit. I'm not sure I'm completely CMV'd yet, but I'm on the way to a happy medium, quickly. Although, I've had those same thoughts before to a degree. Maybe the issue isn't simply not voting, but not educating yourself. What do you think would happen if those non-voters, AND the voters, educate themselves on candidates and issues, rather than just saying 'MAKE EVERYONE VOTE'?### Assistant: Having an educated and informed population is critical for a healthy democracy. It can only help (assuming the education is not heavily biased). But yeah, even little things like learning where each party and candidate stands, and putting in a bit of time to consider how you truly feel on certain issues would be huge.### Human: Couldn't agree more### Assistant: So the real problem is provably misleading political ads & rhetoric

### Human: I think that Reddit has declined into a cesspool of immature teenagers who are mucking up the place with low-brow content. CMV### Assistant: Find out what you like and subscribe to your own subreddits. Unsubscribe from the defaults and you'll realise how much better your experience redditing is. The comments on reddit are horrible. It's **purely** joke after joke after joke. Every thread is filled with one liners and stupid replies.### Human: I just found this subreddit today, and its a nice change to see people form unbiased opinions. But sometimes it is nice to just get a cheap laugh for 5 minutes by a one liner (although they are rare).### Assistant: This whole subreddit is changemybias.### Human: I hope it stays that way. I really love valid arguments or at least seeing some attempt to construct one.### Assistant: What i meant is that the arguments commonly are just change my bias to another bias or maybe a more reasonable bias, but yet it is still another bias. Its not always a clear change my bias to an unbiased fact.### Human: Of course (see rule B), but if you can prove why you are biased and why your bias is justified, there is nothing wrong with (unjustifiable about) being biased. That's why we argue.### Assistant: I guess it just feels like a big circle jerk in posts often. Especially when the post is about something nonsensical like "i feel like reddit has become just a bunch of teenagers" type of question.### Human: I avoid posts which I have no interest in, and which are often repeated. Still, you can make valid arguments in those posts, and question the assumptions and fallacies made by the OP (or other comment authors), if present. It's more of a logical exercise for me than actual content.### Assistant: Yeah i kind of picked up that its not so much a content based sub as much as it is just fun to try and outsmart some one.### Human: OK, I don't know enough about this sub, but I do know that I use logic not to outsmart people. I use it to find the truth. This is what people do, in most academic disciplines. My own background is mathematics, and a true mathematician really does not care whether he is right or wrong; instead we care whether we can prove and show something is true for all eternity, so others will benefit from the result. I apply this world view to other problems as well, and am aware that there are many others, and probably some in this reddit, who are the same.### Assistant: I agree if there is a truth to get at, but if both are biases on both sides then sometimes there is no truth to get at. In which case trying to pick apart some ones crappy argument and use of fallacies is to just outsmart the person through debate. This is referring to those types of previously mentioned cmv posts, like the one i used earlier, "i think reddit has turned to crap cuz of teenagers".### Human: It may be a trivial truth, but it's still something. Here, you can ask how the OP has reached that conclusion, and poke holes, since he seems to base it on a generalization. We can also reach a more precise statement, like "There are some Reddit posts which have no value (in terms of new knowledge, for example) and the probability that they are posted by immature teenagers is, between x% and y%". It is extremely trivial, and I don't think many people go to that level of pedantry, but the main purpose is still to get a truth, and not outsmarting people. For example, in math, we prove that 1+1=2 using the Peano axioms and the definition of 2 as the successor of 1. Is it trivial? Absolutely. Are we doing it to outsmart someone? No, we do it because we need a concrete basis for everything that we write in math, apart from the axioms. This analogy can also be applied to the real world, as you may don't know whether the argument about Reddit and teenagers will be used in a less trivial argument.### Assistant: Well you are a very good example of someone who just tries to test the claim and find if there is some truth to it or not. This is not always the case. A lot of people just argue against the claim because they hold the opposing bias, like capitalism vs socialism, which clearly only comes to a truth if there are universal values that define the best type of government. In these cases i find the arguments to be just a big circle jerk. Now if they narrow it down to more precise claims it can stimulate a better conversation.### Human: Yes, I agree. It is incredibly hard to show that a social/economic/political system is better than another one, since human behavior is extremely complicated, and we typically found systems based on some assumptions of human behavior/values. It is very easy for arguments to become "circle jerks" as you said. If they are receptive and you can be bothered to wade into the mess, you can break down some of the minor arguments piecewise to see if each one of them is valid, even though its premise may not be true. (An aside: A valid argument uses valid logic, but it may have false premises, even though the conclusion is true. E.g. Premise: Cats are birds. Argument and conclusion: Birds are mammals. Therefore, cats are mammals.) It's a slow process. When we do this and inform the other person how the argument may be invalid (politely, of course, it always helps), people receptive to logic eventually get more precise, as you and I have demonstrated in this very argument. We also find that we usually agree on most things.

### Human: CMV: While I respect everyone's personal opinion I think voting in a socially conservative manner on many issues is akin to infringing other people's rights.### Assistant: By that reasoning, it would be objectively more ethical to vote libertarian, as you would avoid infringing on all of the rights mentioned above, as well as second amendment rights. If the major factor in voting is what rights you might infringe on and you have a choice between a party that wants to infringe on several rights, one that wants to infringe on few rights, and one that wants to infringe on no rights, the choice is pretty obvious, no? Note that I'm not really endorsing libertarians, I'm just making a rhetorical point here.### Human: We're talking about social issues only here. When discussing social issues only, there are many more political philosophies than just libertarianism that want to prohibit infringing on rights involving social issues.### Assistant: > We're talking about social issues only here. So we can arbitrarily say that only particular freedoms are worth discussing? >there are many more political philosophies than just libertarianism that want to prohibit infringing on rights involving social issues. Indeed there are. My point is not that libertarians are good, it's that the standards in the OP are poorly thought out and overly simplistic.### Human: >So we can arbitrarily say that only particular freedoms are worth discussing? In a thread specifically about social issues, don't you think we should probably stick to social issues? I don't understand where your mind is here.### Assistant: The OP talked mostly about social issues, but their basic thesis was that voting in a certain way is wrong if it restricts the freedom of others. That idea only works if you start with the assumption that only certain arbitrarily defined freedoms are important.

### Human: CMV: This years Olympics should be moved from Rio.### Assistant: Rio looks like it's going to be an epic clusterfuck, but 2 months isn't enough time to arrange for an alternate venue in another country. Even if the arenas could be prepped on such short notice (which they can't), the hotel and transportation situations would be a nightmare. The only viable alternative I can think of is a truly worldwide emergency Olympics. The opening ceremonies could even stay in Rio, but the events would be held in dozens of other locations. Have the swimming events at the best pool in China, have the basketball events at the best NBA court in the US, have the football events at the best stadium in South Africa, etc. But two months probably isn't enough time to coordinate something like that, either.### Human: or you can delay them a year.### Assistant: Imagine the absolute shitstorm that would follow, plus Brazil could become the laughing stock of the modern world after a fumble like that.### Human: they might become that this year anyway.### Assistant: The odds are that they will be, and rightly so.

### Human: CMV: Bringing a baby into the world knowing they will be seriously mentally or physically disabled should be illegal.### Assistant: Lets forget for a moment the horror of forcing women to go through abortions that they do not want, and do not need, so they don't break the law. Lets look past the almost impossible task of enforcing this law, and the economic consequences for parents, who may not believe in abortion, or feel a responsibility to raise the child they created. Have you thought about how this would impact individuals with disabilities? And the disabled community at large? By promoting the abortion of disabled babies, this policy clearly says that disabled people are not wanted, and are not welcome in our society. By implying that disabled people are not wanted, they would be perceived as a burden and a drain on society. This could lead to wide-spread neglect of disabled people. - Less people training to support them, less government funding for treatment, less assistance for their carers. Can you imagine growing up, knowing that the government doesn't want you alive, and that you are thought of as a burden to society? You didn't ask for a disability, you're only doing the best you can to live. The society that you propose would be a place, where vulnerable people are placed at greater risk. There are other ways to solve your problem. Support networks that can be put in place. Ways to help carers of people with disabilities cope. I know that social security isn't popular in the US, but a carers fund could be made available, to give carers a financial boost. Home-visiting nurses could be subsidised by the government. Programs to engage people with disabilities could be created - kind of like a specialised day care. There are so many ways to help the people who look after the disabled, without trying to cull the disabled population There are options that don't involve forced abortions and discrimination against vulnerable people based on something they cannot help. edit - added details.### Human: >the horror of forcing women to go through abortions Emotional appeal. Dishonest. > that they do not want Completely irrelevant. How is this an argument? >and do not need What does this even mean? Do not need according to whom? According to the premise that they'd be preventing substantial suffering, then yes, they do need it. Again just embelishment of a completely hollow sentence. >Lets look past the almost impossible task of enforcing this law Further embelishment. You say let's look past, but in truth you highlight it. First 'almost impossible' is a major exaggeration, but that doesn't even matter because since when has the difficulty of the enforcement of a law been the criteria for its implementation? Murders are extremely hard to assess and have an extremely high rate of unresolved archival, is it an argument to remove criminal penalties for murderers? The entire remainder of your post is a trainwreck emotional appeal that completely misses the fact OP's main point is about the (lack of) quality of life these people will have, not just about how much of a burden they are to society. He only mentioned the burden exactly once, in his personal case, which simultaneously reinforces that his brother's life is a train wreck too.### Assistant: > You say let's look past, but in truth you highlight it. Well, yes. Those statements exist to say, "Here are some problems with this that you might want to reflect on, but there is a different point I want to focus on and discuss."### Human: Fair enough but if he's not going to back up those statements - for pretty obvious reasons, I'd argue -, then they're not really contributing other than seemingly adding weight to his overall case, despite not actually doing so.### Assistant: I disagree. It puts those topics on the table for others to discuss. Sometimes you don't have the time/energy to cover every point in depth, so you focus on one but you make sure others get a mention, at least.### Human: That's reasonable. I stand corrected.

### Human: CMV: How come the concept of #NotAllMen is derided by the femsphere, but whenever someone makes a generalization regarding feminism the answer is "Not all feminists think like that"?### Assistant: I can see how this would be really confusing. When you look at it that way, it does seem like "It's okay to make generalizations about men, but not make generalizations about feminists." The reality, though, is that you're comparing apples to oranges. The much more nuanced answer is that there are generalizations that are okay to make about men, generalizations that are not okay to make about men, generalizations that are okay to make about feminists, and generalizations that are not okay to make about feminists. It's actually fairly complex, and the reason lies less in the group being generalized, and more in the nature of the generalization. Let's move away from gender to try to use some non-loaded examples. Consider the statement: "Black youth are inundated with media that glorifies criminality, and many are rewarded by their peers for antisocial behavior". This is not a controversial statement that would generate outrage. And everyone understands I am not REFERRING to literally every single black youth in the world, but discussing the group as a whole. If someone felt the need to chime in "NOT ALL BLACK YOUTH", it would be a tedious distraction that misses the point. I am attempting to make a broad statement about how a non-ideoogically defined group interacts with society. Now consider the statement "Republicans believe poor people should starve in the streets." It would be very reasonable to counter this statement with "Most Republicans don't believe that". Even if some do, what that statement is doing is attempting to define the ideology of an ideologically-united group. And that is reasonable to argue with. The first statement is a generalization about a pre-defined group of people describing something about them. The second is an attempt TO define a group of people. Let's bring this around to your example. There *are* radical feminists who say things like "All men are rapists" (especially if you choose to dig into some of the more esoteric characters in the movement's history). As a mainstream feminist, I would and do argue with this statement by insisting that actually very men are rapists and the statement is wrong. On the other hands, I do sometimes use generalizations about feminists when I say things like "Feminists are a fractictious group and we fight too often amongst ourselves" and "Feminists value the discursive safety of a space over its power to advocate change, sometimes at our expense." Again, the first example makes a defining claim about a group (men), while the second makes a generalization about the behavior of a group but isn't defining the group itself. Tldr: It's not the groups that are the issue, it's the type of generalizations being made.### Human: > Consider the statement: "Black youth are inundated with media that glorifies criminality, and many are rewarded by their peers for antisocial behavior". This is not a controversial statement that would generate outrage. And everyone understands I am not REFERRING to literally every single black youth in the world, but discussing the group as a whole. If someone felt the need to chime in "NOT ALL BLACK YOUTH", it would be a tedious distraction that misses the point. I am attempting to make a broad statement about how a non-ideoogically defined group interacts with society. The reason why that comment wouldn't be met with scorn is that it's apologetic towards the subject, in this case black youth. Seemingly absolving them of responsibility while putting the burden of it on two rather-difuse concepts like "society" and "(the black youth's) peers". One must only do a quick search in twitter and tumblr to find examples in which the statement isn't trying to justify the subject, but just point their fault. "Men have a sense of entitlement to sex" isn't in the same vein as "Black youth are inundated with media that glorifies criminality, and many are rewarded by their peers for antisocial behavior": it doesn't justify men, it doesn't care to justify men; it just claims they do. The equivalent would be "Black youth are prone to anti-social behavior", which you will agree isn't the same sort of not-controversial statement you refer to. You can point up that there have been articles, twits and the such being equally apologetic about men within these claims ("men are socialized in a way that they feel entitled to sex"), but it's irrelevant to the point of the CMV: it has been accepted (i.e., not called out by the other members of their respective groups, like another user here has said) as a legitimate argument to point that "all men are...", irregardless of context. > The first statement is a generalization about a pre-defined group of people describing something about them. The second is an attempt TO define a group of people. Which do you consider these belong to? * ["Like Adam Lanza, this would appear to be a case of aggrieved white male entitlement syndrome, one which has led to a murderous and tragic outcome."](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/24/1301736/--The-True-Alpha-Male-Elliot-Rodger-and-Aggrieved-White-Male-Entitlement-Syndrome#) * ["If Ivy League men feel entitled to sex, why is Harvard stuck on 'no means no'?"](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/03/ivy-league-harvard-anonymous-sexual-assault-victim) * ["What's on offer isn't just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it's a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement."](http://jezebel.com/5972788/no-one-is-entitled-to-sex-why-we-should-mock-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid) Mind you, these are fairly popular sites, not some fringe user in the fairest side of the tumblr-sphere.### Assistant: What about this analogy I just made up? Scientist: We need to save the bees! Through global warming and pesticides, humans have decimated bee populations. Beekeeper in audience (stands up): Um, excuse me, not ALL humans kill bees! I take good care of mine! Doesn't change the fact that bees are dying; beekeeper's point is useless. "Men are x" =/ "ALL men are x." The reason it's different from "not all Feminists" is because Feminism is an idealogy that connotes certain beliefs, and therefore, Feminists feel it is necessary to relate those beliefs to others. Explaining that not all Feminists believe the same thing prevents you from assuming things about someone who calls themself a Feminist. Not everybody realizes that Feminists are a diverse group and need to be told (CMVs about Feminism being wrong are good examples). No sane person thinks all men are literally the same, the fact that males are a diverse group is obvious.### Human: >No sane person thinks all men are literally the same, the fact that males are a diverse group is obvious. Yet that is exactly what is implied by many, many feminists.### Assistant: Honest question: which scenario do you think is more plausible: 1) That a significant majority of feminists, including the male feminists, including the feminists who have great relationships with their fathers, sons, brothers, including the feminists who are married to, dating, or sleep with men, including the feminists who tweet with positive gushing support for the great men in their lives, including the ones who write feminism 101 blog entries explaining why they do not believe all men are the same, all actually believe all men are the same despite every bit of evidence to the contrary OR 2) Your understanding of feminism may not be correct. Because if you honestly think #1, I really hope you've thoroughly researched feminism, read most of the defining works of contemporary feminism, spent a lot of time in the feminist sphere of the internet, taken a class or two on it, etc. It's an incredibly bold and dramatic claim to make, and it places a tremendous pressure on you to demonstrate your knowledge of feminism if you ARE THAT certain of your understanding of it in the face of obvious and contradictory evidence. (P.S. Please for the love of god do not respond to this post with some cherry-picked out-of-context quotes from a handful of feminist authors who have not been relevant since the 70s.)### Human: I'm not going to respond to your attempt to pose demands to my level of research before you let me make statements about anything. If the level of 'education' you seem to demand from me is necessary to talk about *anything* then public discourse of just about all topica would be impossible. That said, the nature of human language is such that it is descroptive of our meaning and intentions. For example, if I have a problem with my Toyota (i dont have one), I would go to the garage and say to the mechanic: my toyota has a problem and describe the symptoms. It would be fairly unproductive for me to say: Toyotas have problems! It would inform no one to the size of the problem. It would leave ambiguous which toyotas and how often. However, I could also say: Some toyotas have problems, like my 2008 Yaris. Compare this with countless statements by feminists describing their problems with men in general statements like 'men are priviledged', 'the male entitlement syndrome'. This doesnt adress any subgroup at all. It is stated in general ambiguous terms, because it is meant that way. If then these ambiguous claims are met with surprise by men who say 'not all men', then that should be that. When you are being ambiguous you have no right to demand how people are to specifically interpret what you are saying. If the goal of feminists across the globe was to adress these problems, then they should adress the specific groups that are causing these problems. To adress a whole gender in general is insulting and improductive. Now there are only two reasons why I can think of that many feminists still state all their problems in ambiguous terms: 1. They want all men to hear this problem by adressing all of them. 2. They stereotype men like all people stereotype (as we are by nature pattern-seekers) and litterally mean the entirity of the male race. The first option seems very strange, as it is very clearly driving a wedge between genders. It is saying: hey all men, some of you have a problem! You'd better figure out which among you is problematic because us women can't be more specific than that? Now if you honestly believe that the best way to adress very specific problems with some subgroup of a gender is to adress the entirity of a gender , then that is your right. But to then also rail against part of that gender that doesnt like being stereotyped into what a subgroup is doing is ridiculouals. To say that 'it isn't about you' is just as hurtful, and the fact that you cant see it and that many of you feel the need to ridicule that says enough in my eyes. Edit: spelling is due to phone

### Human: CMV: The West has no obligation to help developing countries with diseases/peacekeeping### Assistant: We have no obligation but it is good for us. Africa is an absolutely huge continent. The amount of unused resources in the continent is baffling. If Africa stabilized it could grow far faster than China ever has (the catch up affect is extremely powerful in economic growth). This growth would create a trading giant that would benefit you greatly. Commodities would be far cheaper, and labour would be even cheaper. You currently have 30% of your trade tied with China, but Africa could easily outshine China's exports. This is why America constantly pumps money into the Middle East. In hopes of stabilizing the region the US hoped to create an extremely powerful trade partner. Unfortunately America's affects on the region have not exactly had the stabilizing affect. But the same logic applies to Africa. Western countries should try to stabilize the region to create a powerful trade partner, as it would benefit us as much as them.### Human: That attempted stability as happened and resulted in either coups, uprisings or guerilla, not that helping to stabilise a region is bad but doing it purely to place yourself in a position to reap the benefits later is### Assistant: I'm not advocating for an American style stabilization, because that obviously failed. I'm advocating for sending doctors and money to Africa. We need to give them the tools to stabilize, and then let them stabilize for them selves.### Human: In this case it helps to be specific as the needs of DRC are very different from the needs of Nigeria, Kenya or Burkina Faso. The greatest successes hasn't been throwing money at things but education and teaching how to build and maintain infrastructure, but even now there are proxy wars that the average person in the west isn't aware of### Assistant: We throw money at them in hopes that they will build schools. But my overall point is that we should try to help. I am no expert on how we should.### Human: Giving money to allied governments that have shown to be untrustworthy or incompetent in the hopes that they will build schools is never a good idea. Especially you're more focused figuring out which one of your bodyguards or generals is gunning for you and where the neighbouring government as hidden genocidal serial rapists in your country. **Edit**: To clarify I'm talking about real world examples, I'm not saying not to help but that throwing money at things is not the only way or even the best way. Such as teaching about about better sanitation, access to better farming techniques, teaching local people how to build infrastructure like roads instead of having a foreign company to do it Giving the people the skills to improve and maintain a better way of life that they can pass on to others. Better roads means you have better access to markets, you can get to the hospital quicker, going to school is safer Source: African guy giving his two cents### Assistant: Dealing with preventable diseases also helps get countries off the ground. Diseases like malaria often reduce intelligence if they strike the young, making it harder for them to get educated/live better later. Malaria treatment is also expensive, meaning that it can force families to sell everything they can or to simply hope that the disease is relatively kind.### Human: That too but I was only looking at it from an economic and structural viewpoint, of course medical care is a huge deal

### Human: CMV: University is the new general education, and like general ed should be publicly funded### Assistant: I think it's a broken economy where everyone has to go to college to hope to get a decent job and have a decent career. Basically, you going to college gives you a competitive advantage against other candidates. Everyone going to college would eliminate this advantage, so basically it's just a broken, pay-to-play system that costs everyone a lot of money. I would argue that universe post-secondary education is not economically necessary, and that we should transition to an internship type system like Germnay has, where only 5% of the population goes to college. These are the people that actually need a specialized higher education, like teachers, doctors, engineers, etc. but everyone else, like would-be business and humanities majors, choose a field they're interested in, and get on-the-job training and start building their careers debt free at 18 instead of 23 and debt-laden. Its important to mention that most politicians and CEOs aren;t necessarily college educated, and there's no social stigma or hierarchy associated with not going to college. (EDIT: I don't see this as socially feasible in the US, we're too attached to the idea of college and the various iconic institutions throughout the country). I went to college and I think more educaiton is a good idea, i just question the economic utility of extending the public education system by 4 additional years.### Human: >I went to college and I think more educaiton is a good idea, i just question the economic utility of extending the public education system by 4 additional years I was against you until this last statement. I absolutely believe that the first two years of my undergrad were almost entirely unnecessary. It was extended high school with math, science, english lit, and history. I did well in all of my classes, but I've retained virtually zero of it. The information that I learned in my last two years of college where I was actually learning things that I use in my chosen field was invaluable. The more educated the general public is, typically the better off the country will be. If we want to keep up, we need to incentivize higher learning, and not through way of easy to get, crippling debt.### Assistant: The information in the first two years isn't the important part. Learning the ways to think and learn are the main goals with the specific content being a vehicle.### Human: you should be doing that from elementary school### Assistant: YET THEY DON'T the only thing REALLY being taught is how to answer for a test. it is hard to actually get interested in a subject. I am only interested in Computers because i went out of my way to learn.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Eating dogs and cats is completely acceptable### Assistant: Carnivores (members of the order Carnivora) have a tendency to have more parasites which can affect a human host. This makes eating cats and dogs post a greater risk for infections. Species of a higher trophic level (things higher up on the food chain) also have a higher concentration of any toxic build up in the local ecosystem. Heavy metals, carcinogens, and radioactive isotopes are all things that are bad for you if you get enough in your diet, and you will pass the safe limits much faster by eating meat from animals higher up on the food chain. [This is known as biomagnification.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification) Edit: "of" instead of "or" in the first sentence.### Human: I have *no idea* what the health issues concerning cat/dog consumption, so I'd love to see any data you have on the topic (not being sarcastic/snide!). Tuna fish are famous for their biomagnification of mercury, so does that mean consumption of tuna should be banned (just as activists are trying to ban consumption of cats/dogs in Switzerland). (I know that there's a movement to ban dolphin meat consumption due to mercury problems.) If there are large amounts of data showing that consumption of cats/dogs is safe for humans, would you concede that the eating of cats/dogs is logically unimpeachable? Edit: dogs are carnivores with significant omnivorous capabilities### Assistant: >Firstly, dogs are not carnivores. Yes they are. They are members of the order Carnivora, and have all of the traits that come with that including what parasites they are susceptible to. >Secondly, I have no idea what the health issues concerning cat/dog consumption, so I'd love to see any data you have on the topic You are right to ask for data. There hasn't been much in the way of direct studies on eating cats and dogs, but we do have enough data on similar species to come to a logical prediction of what such a study will hold. [This study clearly shows the dangers of biomagnification on humans.](http://www.pnas.org/content/100/23/13380.short) [This study relied on the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in dogs](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-011-9315-3) [This study showed indicators of bioaccumulation of heavy metals in both the Iberian lynx (a close relative of house cats) and the red fox (a close relative of dogs).](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969708003781) [This study showed high levels of bioaccumulation of a toxic flame retardant chemical in house cats.](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0708159) [This study concluded that captive sled dogs filled in as a functional monitoring system for bioaccumulation in polar bears as the dogs bioaccumulated the chemicals in question at a similar rate.](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045607002499) [This study showed that there are some chemicals that do not biomagnify in aquatic food webs but do in terrestrial food webs.](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/236.short) Overall, the indicators are pretty strong that the dangers of biomagnification are real for humans and that they are worse when eating animals of a higher trophic level such as dogs and cats. >Lastly, tuna fish are famous for their biomagnification of mercury, so does that mean consumption of tuna should be banned I don't think eating cats and dogs should be banned, just that it is not a good thing to make a habit out of. Similarly, I avoid eating tuna often, and save it for rare occasions. >If there are large amounts of data showing that consumption of cats/dogs is safe for humans, would you concede that the eating of cats/dogs is logically unimpeachable? Yes. Although, I still wouldn't find it practical on a large scale. The amount of resources needed to raise a pound of meat from a dog or cat is much higher than the amount needed for more common animals for consumption.### Human: This post is pretty awesome. Just a few questions (simply because I'm well informed in this field). 1.The study by Lanocha et al. (2012) notes the presence of Pb, Hg, and Cd in dog bones. What are the limits for these elements in a human? Also, it might be possible that these toxin levels in dogs may be due to location of the study. Perhaps a similar experiment set in various locations would be more telling. 2. What is the maximum level of PBDE that a human body can hold and still maintain good health? What are the consequences of chronic PBDE exposure? 3. You've presented great sources documenting the problem of biomagnification of toxins in domesticated cats/dogs. Is there any evidence of such problems for domesticated, non-carniverous animals (e.g. horse)?### Assistant: >What is the maximum level of PBDE that a human body can hold and still maintain good health? What are the consequences of chronic PBDE exposure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers#Case_studies >You've presented great sources documenting the problem of biomagnification of toxins in domesticated cats/dogs. Is there any evidence of such problems for domesticated, non-carniverous animals (e.g. horse)? I couldn't find any sources directly comparing domestic herbivores with predators from the same region. However, the core concept of biomagnification is that each trophic level will have higher chemical concentrations than what they eat. So, a horse should have higher concentration than the grass or oats it eats. Similarly, a deer should have higher concentration than whatever it is eating, but whatever is eating it will have yet higher concentration. This translates to city strays in that they will have higher concentrations of chemicals than the rats or birds they eat, which will also have higher concentrations than the bird seed or trash they are eating. I'm afraid that I have just about reached the limits of my understanding of this stuff. My focus is more on macrobiotics and ecology than microbiotics and biochemistry, so I understand the general concepts, but researching the details starts to go over my head.### Human: ∆ This has been greatly enlightening. I've come to the conclusion that pet consumption should be discouraged based on potential health problems (*definitely not because we should feel bad about it or because some animals are more intelligent than others*). Additionally, large scale maintenance of dog/cat farms (and subsequently large scale consumption) would be economically inefficient. However, the government should not ban pet consumption because dogs/cats eaten in small amounts is not detrimental to health or economy.### Assistant: But dogs taste *great*..... I used to eat with my grandfather twice a week for 4 months! Best tasting meat ever, although the flavor and smell are very strong.

### Human: CMV: Piracy is the result of flawed distribution and it's up to the industry to adapt.### Assistant: I do not think we will like how movies adapt. This happened with games, everyone blamed the industry for not making profits, so they made pay to win games and pointless extra content, or on disk dlcs, or always online gaming. When everyone decides, "The quality of your content does not matter, I will not pay for it if other means exist.", then developers stop caring about quality, and pour their time effort and money into making you pay, not making a good game/movie.### Human: The argument wasn't about quality though. It was about delivery. I'd be willing to bet movies on Netflix get pirated less than others. I'd also be willing to bet that movies available digitally would sell more volume at a lower price point.### Assistant: And even Steam for games, given all the sales and deep discounts. A good business model goes a long way.### Human: Price balancing is a fine art but a race to the bottom encourages large volumes of inexpensive games IMO, and discourages expensive risky games, which are the ones critics seem to like more.### Assistant: Gamers like those, too. As it is, risky games are indie and cheap, and expensive games are formulaic and repetitive. If the industry's profit margins aren't big enough (and piracy is a big reason they aren't), they can't afford to gamble on an expensive, risky game.### Human: >(and piracy is a big reason they aren't) Source for this? From what I hear, the sales for games are the best in all of history.

### Human: CMV: Joining an apprenticeship to become an electrician is better than a CS major### Assistant: You're distorting the statistics. The top wage for an electrician, according to the BLS, is [around $80,000. The median is actually $50,000.](http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472111.htm) On the other hand, the median for [computer programmers is $70,000.](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm#tab-5) That's $20,000 more than the median for electricians. In addition, the top make around $120,000. $40,000 more than the top wage for electricians.### Human: Depends just how far you're willing to go. An electrician working in Fort MacMurray can pull $200k/year with little trouble, while a cs major would still barely take $100k home. I was in school for computer science, but realized that It wasn't going to take me anywhere a trade couldn't. I'm a 1st year millwright, electricians make more than millwrights up here, as a first year I'll make well over $100k this year.### Assistant: An electrician making $200,000 a year is *far* from the norm. We're talking about averages here and as far as averages go, CS beats out electricians. Besides, there are computer programmers who used their skills to create billions so if we're going to go with the outliers here, then the CS major's have got them beat there again.### Human: Fair point, but making $200k as an electrician, while not the norm, is still more likely than making billions in cs. The other advantage of a trade is that you don't need to spend years accruing a student loan debt, you spend 2 months per year in school, which, unions, employers and trade organizations usually help with the costs of doing so. Smart trades workers have very little, if any loan debt upon getting their tickets. And red seal trades are recognized worldwide, while many cs courses are only locally recognized.### Assistant: It's also still much more likely to make over $200,000 as a programmer. I understand there are benefits to being an electrician. Pay is simply not one of them. A CS major on a fair side by side comparison will come ahead in money.

### Human: CMV: Destiny doesn't look like the revolutionary title it's made out to be### Assistant: Did you happen to play the alpha? I'm getting older a lot of games just seem like new skins on an old game. I played this alpha with a friend and, for the first time in at least four years, I was actually giddy to explore and play. I created all three classes available and got them to the level cap. Not that it was hard to do, it was that fun for me. My friend felt similarly. We found areas we were positive we weren't supposed to get to where the enemies killed you in one hit. The gameplay fits the setting perfectly and the ways you progress make sense. For something that borrows so heavily from other games, it feels absolutely refreshing. My friend and I pre-ordered it the day the alpha ended to ensure beta access. I was so skeptical of this game at every reveal and preview and now it is my most anticipated game.### Human: Such things were said almost *word for word* back when Guild Wars 2 came out. It's a great game, but I don't think people would call it revolutionary now. I think it's the same deal with Destiny.### Assistant: As a WoW player GW2 really pulled me in for a solid amount of time. It offered many new and creative features I hadn't seen in WoW. But I agree it was not revolutionary. But part of that could be because they failed to implement dynamic events to the extent they had initially claimed. The GW2 manifesto still gives me goosebumps though.### Human: I played WoW for about 4 years after release and GW2 was fun to play the first 100h. The two main flaws GW2 had (and still has) is the aggro management (dungeons are a pita to play) and the limited skill system (the skills are bound by weapon types and not changeable). Did that bother you, too?### Assistant: The weapon skills didn't bother be throughout GW2 tbh, but I was a Guardian and only ever really had 2 different loadouts for dungeons. What irritated me about GW2 was that once you hit end-game your character was basically maxed out damage wise, the main thing you were grinding for was better looking weapons and armour. It became mostly about aesthetics.### Human: It was the same way in GW1. You could easily get max armor/weapons on about 5 hours of play but most itemization was for aesthetics

### Human: CMV:Voting for Trump out of spite shows the willing acceptance the failure of Democracy in America.### Assistant: The people having the ability to vote for whom they wish seems to be saying that democracy is working. If the people want to vote in Trump and they can vote for him, that is showing the power of the people.### Human: Is democracy an election or a philosophy of governace?### Assistant: It is government of the people by the people It is the people making the choice for who they feel would be their best leader. As much as I would personally not want that person to be Trump, if the people elect him that is who we get. The masses getting to pick their leaders is kind of the bedrock of the entire system. I don't get how we can mess with that and still have something resembling democracy.### Human: I hate to bring it up because people always freak out, but Hitler was democratically elected.### Assistant: >I hate to bring it up because people always freak out, but Hitler was democratically elected. How does this demonstrate the failure of democracy?### Human: Just that sometimes an election, while democratic, can harm a democracy.

### Human: CMV: The current presidential election has revived my faith in American democracy### Assistant: Trump may not be part of the establishment. But, he's still a billionaire. The government isn't controlled by one monolithic group of elites. But, with things currently as they are, you can definitely argue that the government is controlled by the rich.### Human: It's true that the 'elites' are not a monolithic group. There are factions. However, I don't think Trump has the support of any of these factions. Granted, he is wealthy, and granted, he himself is a member of the elite, but his support does not come from the elites. The fact that he himself is a member of the elite isn't as relevant as you might think. Governments are always made up of members of the elite. Everybody wants to elect the best and brightest to their government. The issue at stake is who decides who fits that description, and I think it's still the people.### Assistant: Would you say that the election of the best elite by a majority constitutes a democracy? An election which rules out the non-millionaire class as viable candidates? I still call that an oligarchy.### Human: It all depends, predictably, on your definition of 'elite'. Say you want to elect an average person. Which average person? Well, the best one, clearly. Whoever's smartest, whoever has the most relevant knowledge. That no longer sounds like an average person. Ruling out the non-millionaire class is an oligarchic thing to do, but it doesn't in itself make an oligarchy. The critical issue is who holds the most power in the selection of a candidate. Every element of tradition and establishment doctrine said Trump was unfit to be a candidate and out-of-bounds for selection, but he appears to have been selected anyway. Could he have done it if he wasn't a billionaire? I'm not sure if I can answer that for a presidential race. I can tell you that Sanders got far enough to be considered a viable candidate on less than a million personal dollars, but since it doesn't look like he will end up winning I'm not sure that will convince you. Instead, let's look at the senate. I looked up Sanders' net worth to confirm he wasn't part of the millionare class, and noticed something interesting. [This source](http://moneynation.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth/) states that Sanders net worth is $528,014, and went on to give this interesting bullet point: >Out of 100 U.S. Senators, Bernie Sanders’ net worth is #86. That means that at least 15 U.S. Senators, almost a 7th of the Senate, fall outside the millionare class. The question I'd put to you is, does that mean that these men are not part of the establishement? Does it mean they aren't part of the elite? I think the elites are defined by more than just net worth. But I don't think the non-millionare class have been ruled out of politics.### Assistant: According to [RollCall](http://media.cq.com/50Richest/), 49 of 100 Senators are worth less than $1M. 15 of those are worth less than $0, including Marco Rubio. I don't think these valuations correspond exactly to how rich someone "really" is; the link says they don't include the value of property owned by the senators, but do subtract the value of mortgages on said property.

### Human: CMV: I'm gay but do not attend LGBT events because I don't believe integration is achieved through segregated events, and believe these events only perpetuate the idea that male homosexuals are promiscuous.### Assistant: Gay events aren't generally segregated. The idea generally isn't "only gay people allowed", but rather, "gay people encouraged to come so that, for once, the gay attendees won't be in the numerical minority". I don't think there's anything about this that is incompatible with integration. It's also nice because when you're gay, it can be hard to find potential sexual/romantic partners because the vast majority of people are straight and it isn't always easy to tell who is/isn't gay. But if you're at a gay event, your odds are much better.### Human: I disagree. There is a lesbian bar near where I live that has existed for quite some time, they have always advertised as 'everyone' allowed. But if you are a straight man and you walk in there and order a drink you will get the stink eye. They like to say that they are open to everyone, but in reality it is a club that you aren't invited to. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were more upfront with it.### Assistant: Well, for one thing - it's a _bar_, not a ski event. The second thing is, if you go with a female friend or two the first time and get to know them, they won't care. They just don't want someone going in there, having a few drinks, and then deciding that he could totally cure these chicks. I'm willing to bet this is a semi regular occurrence.### Human: This one. If I had a nickel for every guy who hit on me (even with my fiancé present!) and claimed he could cure me or that I should experiment... Yuck! I like gay bars and events because there is social pressure to keep those fuckers out.### Assistant: That's charming. The lesbian bar in my town sometimes has different straight guys offering drinks that have already been poured, sitting in a dark corner. When my friend said she got groped, the bouncer told us the straight guy is totally an undercover FBI agent and couldn't have his cover blown by getting bounced. Nice preemptive story, bro, to deflect the future complaints you'll get. I bet all FBI undercover agents tell the bar staff that they're FBI. ...ugh. Sorry, reddit, straight guys in lesbian bars are suspect until proven harmless.### Human: UGH. Just... UGH. Right up there with the creepers who try to hit on me and my fiancee in the street when they see us walking together. Just... Oh man. I am usually not a violent person but that's one of the few things that tempt me.

### Human: CMV: I think the 50 Shades of Grey novel/movie portrays an physical/emotional abuse that is passed off as a BDSM relationship.### Assistant: Do you believe that healthy consensual BDSM relationships can and do exist? If so (I assume so) what, in particular, about the relationship portrayed in the novel/movie crosses (blurs) the line? EDIT: > I think that people watching this movie who are in abusive relationships in real life may be swayed to believe that abuse is acceptable, or even normal, in a relationship because it is masked by the façade of a “love story” in this movie. There is always a very real risk that people will fail to properly distinguish the line between fantasy and reality, both in their own lives and in the fiction/non-fiction they consume. This, however, can not be used to blame the content creator *unless a specific charge of intentional deception is being leveled*. For ultimately we are only in control of ourselves and can take nothing but reasonable actions in consideration of others. Just because vulnerable people exist can not be a reason enough to wear soft gloves at all times.### Human: I do believe that healthy, consensual BDSM relationships can and do exist. That in particular leads to one of my problems with the book/movie. The relationship between Christian and Anastasia is specifically labeled BDSM, yet the standards of a true, consensual relationship under such a label are violated on numerous occasions. For example, Christian uses stalking, intimidation, and isolation as means of maintaining complete control over Ana. As a result of this, Ana displays signs of distress and paranoia that should be warning signs that abuse is taking place. This in turn could lead people to believe that the behavior exhibited in the movie is simply that of the nature of a BDSM relationship, and that they are not being abused, according to the movie, when in fact they are. I understand your point about not blaming the creator for content that may be hard for some to digest. However I think there are certain topics in today's society that are taboo for a reason. If for example the story was in fact explicitly about an abusive relationship that somehow attempted to pass as a love story, this movie would face a lot more protest, simply because the relationship is labeled as an abusive relationship.### Assistant: Just saw the movie and I thought the whole point of Christian's actions which violate healthy BDSM rules was to show that she was more than just a submissive to him, and that he was falling in love and couldn't control himself. She's supposed to be changing him by inspiring him to break those rules. At the end, her leaving him is seen as a consequence of breaking those rules I thought. Clearly before her at any rate, he had his lifestyle on lockdown and was very careful about what he did and how.### Human: That is a good point. Though it explains the reasoning behind Christian's actions though, I don't think it makes his actions acceptable.### Assistant: No, my point is that it isn't acceptable and that it's not supposed to be. He's fucking up because he can't control himself around her. I'm assuming the character arc is that she essentially redeems him in the next two books, but I've not read any of them and don't plan to.

### Human: CMV: Universities should not have safe spaces### Assistant: [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4xsg8k/cmv_safe_spaces_are_unhealthy_because_college/d6i3out/) was an excellent reply to a CMV similar to yours. Also, when people advocate for "Safe spaces" in universities, they're advocating to a room that people can willingly enter. It isn't about making an entire university "safe", so to speak. It's not like people are being sheltered during their entire university career by refusing to leave that room, it's just one space that allows people to exist briefly without judgement.### Human: That is a very good reply. However I'm struggling to be convinced because of this line > Safe spaces are for opinions where you risk shame, humiliation, and emotional pain by expressing them That, at least in my experience, is the exact opposite of what they're used for. Most of the time I have witnessed them being used by people who feel victimised by a particularly controversial opinion and use the room to avoid any kind of interaction with anyone who may be attending the speech. His example is extremely emotive and I understand his reasoning, however I don't think safe spaces are what you and he describe anymore.### Assistant: I think that violates the idea of a "safe space", then. That's what the safe space at my university is used for: it's frequented by marginalized groups that are able to comfortably share their experiences without fear of being attacked. Perhaps your university has a skewed view of the purpose of a safe space is, but that doesn't invalidate the idea of a safe space altogether.### Human: Yeah, I get the feeling that I've misinterpreted their actual use. That first post you linked to was pretty convincing and given the other replies and your own I understand their place now, albeit in a different role to how I have experienced them. ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bad__hombres ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bad__hombres)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [​](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "bad__hombres" } DB3PARAMSEND)

### Human: CMV: Western countries shouldn't accept refugees because it is a lot cheaper to house them in secured areas of their country/neighboring country.### Assistant: I want to address this 10% increase thing you keep bringing up as a counterargument. A 10% increase logistically isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. Say there's a village of 1000 people getting clean water from a well that has a clean aquifer. Adding 100 people to that 1000 could be the difference between equilibrium for that aquifer and it being depleted within 10 days. Of course there's ways around that problem. You can airdrop bottled water or desalinate or find further water sources, but all of these are relatively inefficient ways of providing clean water. Also, it's not like water is the only problem. Would it be more efficient to provide food in the West, where they have large economies of scale devoted to production and transportation, or to airdrop it in the Middle East, if farmland there is at capacity already? It is the desert, after all. Or perhaps it's hard to find enough doctors willing to go to Syria to help treat refugees in camps. If you add 10%, you'll need 10% more doctors, but you probably won't get 10% more doctors willing to go to Syria. Better to just bring them to the west and spread them out among the doctors that are already there. Not to mention that the choice of site to house refugees in the West is much easier because there are so many safe options. Nearly any town in Canada will be safe, so you can direct refugees anywhere that can accommodate them. This is not the case in Syria, where you have to direct them to places that are safe, which may only be safe because they are of little value to begin with and thus don't have nearby resources. Finally, it is much cheaper for any country to have a productive member of society than to be feeding a non productive member. This isn't the case in Europe maybe, but in all of the countries that accept very few refugees, they pretty much cherry pick refugees from UN camps, and can choose the ones they believe will become productive.### Human: But the refugees originally meant a 100% or even more population increase in some areas and that went "fine"? (conditions are not great, that's why i propose we help these people instead of a select few.) > Finally, it is much cheaper for any country to have a productive member of society than to be feeding a non productive member. This isn't the case in Europe maybe, but in all of the countries that accept very few refugees, they pretty much cherry pick refugees from UN camps, and can choose the ones they believe will become productive. Do you have some examples of some European countries criteria?### Assistant: Yes, it is fine, depending on context. If your aquifer could easily provide water for 2000 people, a 100% increase is fine. Most infrastructure in the West is set up to allow for really massive increases. You can much more easily get resources to people if you have well-paved wide highways in a clean grid across the country, for instance. Less easy if you have dirt roads that sink when you increase the load in your trucks, or if you have to start airdropping supplies because of difficulty of access on that scale. I don't have European countries criteria specifically, because the European situation is different because of some countries opening up their borders to refugees entirely, and then the open borders of the Schengen area making control pretty difficult. I was specifically talking about countries such as Canada (which I mention because I am Canadian), where [most refugees accepted are actually resettled from refugee camps where they already claimed asylum](http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/milestones.asp).### Human: I'm talking about the massive population increase in some areas in the middle east due to the refugees, so a 10% increase should also be possible.### Assistant: They're pretty much at capacity. [Jordan used to take thousands a day, now down to 50-100](http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syrian-refugee-crisis-building-jordans-borders-1697861927). I mean, still a lot, but they are running out of services to give and tens of thousands are currently at the border, waiting to be let in.### Human: I think they would take more if we provided a lot more aid. And not everyone has to go to Jordan### Assistant: You haven't addressed any of my points at all. Do you agree that inefficiencies arise from significant, even if not relatively enormous, increases of logistical requirements? Until you address that with something more specific than "well they are doing it now" even when clearly they aren't (that's like saying Venezuela still has population, so it's clearly successful at feeding its people) I'm starting to believe you're not really that invested in keeping this an open argument at all. I chose Jordan because it's the neighbouring country with the best possible situation. It's a relatively stable government with pretty stringent security. Every other nearby country that has taken on as many refugees is in a worse situation and has had recent terror attacks. Not exactly asylum material. If Jordan is struggling, these nations are struggling even more.### Human: > Do you agree that inefficiencies arise from significant, even if not relatively enormous, increases of logistical requirements? Yes but they won't be large enough to outweigh the cost of housing refugees in the western world. Even if costs somehow doubled because of the 10% increase in refugees, it still would be better to house them in the middle east. > Until you address that with something more specific than "well they are doing it now" even when clearly they aren't (that's like saying Venezuela still has population, so it's clearly successful at feeding its people) I'm starting to believe you're not really that invested in keeping this an open argument at all. The middle east is indeed doing a bad job at housing refugees, but i think that we could help them a lot by providing a lot of aid instead of helping a select few. To continue on your venezueala analogy, what we are currently doing is like sending three course dinners to some, and giving some bread and water to the rest.

### Human: CMV: I think the reason there is so much disagreement about whether or not something is racist/sexist etc, is because people don't understand what those terms mean.### Assistant: I don't think it's that people don't "understand", it's that people disagree about what those terms actually mean. Much like the word "feminism", it means a different thing depending on who's saying it. For most people, "racism" means hate, and not just to white people. You'll see white people equate it with hate when they're saying something like "I'm not racist. I like black people just fine." But then you'll see black people equate it with hate instead of just "judging based on skin color" when they say something like "Affirmative action isn't racism, because it's not about hate." My own personal definition of "racism" is making assumptions about someone or taking certain actions toward them based on nothing but their skin color. I recognize that this is very close to the definition of prejudice, but to me it makes the most sense. It's probably best to just avoid these hot-button words altogether simply because there's so much ambiguity about what someone actually means by them. It's not misunderstanding, it's just passionate disagreement.### Human: To me racism or sexism or whatever is just the step past prejudice where you take act on that prejudice.### Assistant: That's fair. However, by that definition, something like affirmative action is most definitely racism/sexism. Giving someone an advantage because of their race or sex, to me, is absolutely no different than giving them a DISadvantage because of it. Racism does not have to be negative. "Positive" racism is still racism.### Human: This is an example of what OP is saying. This is not a proper understanding of racism, it is a simplistic argument people make who are uneducated about racism. When a group has been disadvantaged for such a long time, extra measures have to be taken to restore the balance and return to equality. This means measures like affirmative action, which isn't as simple as just "giving someone an advantage because of their race or sex". Here is the definiton of racism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Affirmative action fits neither of these. People are hired on basis of minority status, not because minorities are considered superior, but *because they have long been considered inferior*. AA is the polar opposite of racism. An example of "positive racism" would be saying Asians are good at math. Affirmative action is not saying minorities are better at doing work.### Assistant: Yes, actually, it very much is giving someone an advantage based on their race or sex. The reasoning may be what you consider noble, but that doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what AA does. No, I assure you there's no issue of being "uneducated" about racism here, which is exactly why I disagreed with OP's point to begin with. I know exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying I disagree with that definition of racism, and I think damn near everyone else does, too if you ask the right questions. Take this statement: "All black people love fried chicken and watermelon, and they name their kids with unconventional names. In addition, you can always spot an Asian by their squinty eyes." Ask 100 people if that's a racist statement, and 99 of them are going to say yes. But by your definition here, it's not. Because it makes absolutely no claim of superiority/inferiority whatsoever. Simply making some observations of things that we stereotypically ascribe to those races, but with no assertion of one being better than the other in any way.### Human: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Circumcision is genital mutilation, and should almost never be performed (from the point of view of a woman)### Assistant: I was circumcised at 23. Sex afterwards was significantly improved. In addition, it is a lot less smelly regardless of cleaning frequency. Also, I no longer have to worry about yeast infections, which is a nice bonus. The differences, as one of the very few who can actually comment on both sides, are so minor that it is not worth worrying about.### Human: Sounds like you had poor hygiene Bro. Smells? Yeast infection? What?!### Assistant: Yeast infections are contracted from women after having vaginal intercourse. And penises smell. If you claim you have a 100% scentless dick, you're lying. Washing every day reduces this, it doesn't eliminate it. Being circumcised just means that when I get home from work, I don't have to shower before having sex or getting head.### Human: [removed]### Assistant: Sorry TUKINDZ, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 2\. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+2+Post+Appeal&message=TUKINDZ+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3kmyqw/cmv_circumcision_is_genital_mutilation_and_should/cuz9rgb\))

### Human: CMV: I don't think everybody deserves the right to vote.### Assistant: Pragmatically, restricting the right to vote is nearly impossible to enforce fairly. The people in power have a vested interest in keeping their power and, if the government can restrict the right to vote, then they can selectively enforce those laws in order to change election outcomes. Because of this possibility, the only way to make sure all elections remain fair is to allow everyone an equal vote.### Human: I fail to see how this isn't a narrow way to look at the situation. What if the criteria for eligibility in voting was made through a standardized evaluation that tested for basic knowledge of the parties, candidates and other voting matter, in a way that was universally recognisable as factual? Why isn't this possible? It could even be with simple multiple option questions. Examples, "Which of the following policies are supported by party X" or "Which of these public positions has candidate X previously held''. These examples might be poor but you get the idea - drawing a universal indicator that any one voter is minimally informed in order to exercise his right to vote, consciously. The most obvious issue that pops up is, 'how would we determine what is relevant information when exercising one's right to vote?' However, I don't see coming up with an agreement on an answer to this is impossible or even fiendishly hard at all.### Assistant: I think an individual test can be unbiased. I don't think a law allowing such tests can be permanently unbiased, though. Firstly, it establishes precedent. Sure, our objective knowledge law was innocuous enough, but a clever politician could push through a new law that extends it just slightly, as nauseum. Secondly, it won't necessarily remain fair. How does the law make sure the tests stay unbiased? Our country couldn't even keep districting or campaign elections unbiased, and those don't even have a *direct* effect on people's ability to vote. Do you honestly think that, fifty years after it passing, it would be just as innocuous as when it started? Such laws just don't seem like a good idea. They have no obvious real benefits, and have obvious downfalls in the long term.### Human: >They have no obvious real benefits I thoroughly disagree with this. How does changing the voting demographics from an ignorant majority, who votes essentially as a function of who they were born to, to an educated majority whose consciousness plays a factor have no tangible benefits? But okay, let's assume what you described happens - throughout time the laws become not quite so objective and unbiased. At this point I was going to ask, 'This happens to most things anyway. Wouldn't the benefits still outweigh the small varying inclinations that resulted from the laws?', but it probably doesn't make much sense to anymore considering you don't recognise those benefits.### Assistant: I could be convinced! This is CMV anyway, be a bit more charitable about people's ability to think critically about their own views! I personally do worry more about the government overstepping its bounds than I do about ignorant voters. Why shouldn't I? What part of ignorant people voting do you think is a problem that I'm not considering?### Human: > I could be convinced! This is CMV anyway, be a bit more charitable about people's ability to think critically about their own views! That is not what I meant at all. What I meant was that my question could only have the answer I was looking for if you shared premises that coincidently you had just stated not to. I find the end of your second paragraph very puzzling though. It's just very orthogonal to my perception. Perhaps a better way to look at it is, what *good* comes out of ignorant voting? What good is there to voting just for the sake of voting? Is that all there is to voting? At least when it comes to government related stuff, I guess we can agree it isn't. The goal is to have the outcome that is best according to the most people. But an ignorant voter who goes to cast his vote because he was born in X state without ever considering any alternatives isn't picking a *best* option, because for him there were never any alternatives. TL;DR the voting just becomes dilluted with pointless input that can often have real consequences (i.e., a party or candidate winning despite a consensus from an informed minority that they are undoubtedly unfit for the position). Sarah Palin comes as a recent example of how insanely far one can go on the back of ignorant demographics before there is enough momentum to expose them as completely unqualified.### Assistant: >That is not what I meant at all. What I meant was that my question could only have the answer I was looking for if you shared premises that coincidently you had just stated not to. Fair enough, that makes sense in retrospect! >I find the end of your second paragraph very puzzling though. It's just very orthogonal to my perception. Perhaps a better way to look at it is, what *good* comes out of ignorant voting? What good is there to voting just for the sake of voting? Is that all there is to voting? I think we need to call attention to the difference between an ignorant person voting and a person voting ignorantly. I was speaking of the former, and I believe you are speaking of the latter. Consider again a political knowledge test that you must pass in order to vote. A "fair" test would need to be factual, not about opinions - but voting is about your opinions! A person who thought out why they liked one opponent over another may still not be able to answer lots of factual questions about their policies in a test-like format. Unless the test was absurdly easy, lots of people who don't know much about politics - but still have valid opinions about who should be running the country for one reason or another - would fail! You could argue that they should just need to study, but voter ID laws demonstrate how much requiring a tiny bit of effort can fuck up representativeness. >At least when it comes to government related stuff, I guess we can agree it isn't. The goal is to have the outcome that is best according to the most people. But an ignorant voter who goes to cast his vote because he was born in X state without ever considering any alternatives isn't picking a *best* option, because for him there were never any alternatives. I just think that a factual test doesn't judge well whether the person is voting for no reason. It just tests whether they have particular knowledge which may or may not have contributed to their vote. I think ignorant is the wrong word for many people, perhaps I'm more refreshing to people with passive involvement in the political process. >TL;DR the voting just becomes dilluted with pointless input that can often have real consequences (i.e., a party or candidate winning despite a consensus from an informed minority that they are undoubtedly unfit for the position). Sarah Palin comes as a recent example of how insanely far one can go on the back of ignorant demographics before there is enough momentum to expose them as completely unqualified. I think a lot of the trends you allude to are because of low participation. Voting tests would lower it further, making it easier for tiny minorities (deluded people like those convinced by Sarah Palin can still pass these tests, they would be motivated to study...) to have a disproportionate effect on the system. TL;DR free voting with high participation is better than restricting voting to some particular, "objectively deserving" demographic. Restricting the vote, even with a benign government, would have unpredictable effects and I don't think it would be as positive as you say. We have problems now, but it's not due to people who are objectively ignorant on political facts, it's due to moralistic claims, misinformation, and the group mentality of our political parties.

### Human: I believe agnosticism is the most intelligent position to "believe" on the religion/atheism spectrum CMV### Assistant: A very, *very* tiny minority of atheists actually think that god is disprovable. Agnosticism is not typically considered as a position on the same axis as athism/theism. In fact, there is no spectrum there, it's a binary choice. A theist is someone who believes in at least one god. If that statement does not apply to you, you are without theism, or an atheist. That's literally what atheist means, the prefix a- means 'without'. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a statement about whether or not you believe the existence of god is provable. There are people out there who believe in god, and furthermore believe that his existence can be proven true. They would be gnostic theists. Then there are people who belief in god, but acknowledge that they can not prove this belief, they are agnostic theists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who don't believe in god, and who believe that proving his non-existence is impossible.### Human: > In fact, there is no spectrum there, it's a binary choice. A theist is someone who believes in at least one god. If that statement does not apply to you, you are without theism, or an atheist. That's literally what atheist means, the prefix a- means 'without'. This is where things get sketchy because the vast majority of people (even redditors) view things through a spectrum and at one extreme is atheism and at the other is theism, with agnosticism somewhere in the middle. Although this defies the literal definition of atheism, it is true that atheism is viewed as the "belief that there is no god." This leads to people like Neil Degrasse Tyson, who do not believe in a god (therefore making them semantic atheists), [to reject the label of atheism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos). As someone who identifies as an atheist because of the literal definition of atheism, I find it really discouraging when people like NDT reinforce this idea that atheism is a "movement." I am not like [this guy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43WJ4AlOI2Y). I simply *lack an active belief* in a god.### Assistant: As posted farther up, [this](http://imgur.com/20WHvvh.png) is most people's impression of what (a)theism is- a sliding scale. Atheism as a moniker isn't a null hypothesis in the eyes of the average person. That said, the label of Agnostic is used to distinguish oneself from the few Gnostic Atheists and the other negative connotations of Atheism as a 'movement'. I myself am a pure Agnostic, but I think some would-be atheists are using the moniker to distinguish themselves from this more extreme cases.### Human: I have never in my life met a gnostic atheist. Please point me to one. I am convinced that they don't exist.### Assistant: Someone said there was a CMV on it, but the point is the theists tend to interpret some athiests as some sort of coalition of gnostic athiests trying to destroy faith. Clarifying you're agnostic can be important in winning their favor, if you wish to.### Human: >theists tend to interpret some athiests as some sort of coalition of gnostic athiests trying to destroy faith. I find it really disturbing that it is not only extreme theists that believe this. This misconception has completely infected our society all the way up to scientific thinkers like NDT. Hell, half of the people *in this thread* seem to be painting atheists as boogeymen and hiding behind "agnosticism" as the only intellectually justifiable belief system. I don't like to think that cesspools like /r/atheism have this much influence on society's view of atheism. I truly believe that most atheists take on atheism as the simple philosophical position (or rather, lack thereof) and are not on some sort of anti-religious crusade.### Assistant: Yeah, It's almost a split in terms of differentiation- using the different monikers to associated the groups. The vocal minority can be extremely effective on people's opinions of a much larger group.

### Human: I believe that biology teachers in the US who do not accept evolution should be banned from teaching the subject through administering a test. CMV### Assistant: Well, if biology teachers knew they would lose their jobs, a lot of them would just write "yes." When I learned biology, it's quite possible my teacher didn't believe in it, I lived in a rural Christian area. When she started teaching that section, she said "I know some of you have beliefs that may tell you something different than this material. That's not something we will be discussing in this class. You need to learn this material because it is part of the state standards and I am teaching it to you." and she left it at that. It doesn't really matter what she believed.### Human: The best way I think would be incorporating parts into the curriculum that are easy to teach and understand. I've met a few evolution deniers here and there but it's *really* hard for them to conjure up an alternative explanation for why we need new influenza vaccines every year.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: I think Obama is a good president and will be praised by history.### Assistant: Though he ran in favor of them, he has been absolutely horrible on issues of privacy and government transparency. It isn't a minor thing either, I honestly believe that these issues will be the 21st century equivalent of the battle over civil rights.### Human: >the 21st century equivalent of the battle over civil rights. You don't think our current battles over civil rights are the 21st century versions of the battle over civil rights?### Assistant: No. Not even close.### Human: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/disney-nfl-could-boycott-georgia-over-religious-freedom-bill You don't think the fact that states are attempting to pass legislation that allows people to deny others services based on factors outside of their control, at all resembles 20th century civil rights battles? http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/news/economy/chicago-segregated/ How about how our cities and schools are still super segregated?### Assistant: > You don't think the fact that states are attempting to pass legislation that allows people to deny others services based on factors outside of their control, at all resembles 20th century civil rights battles? No because there's a big difference between attempting to pass and passed. >How about how our cities and schools are still super segregated? Compared to how it used to be? Like the entire country being segregated. I'll say again. **No. not even close.**### Human: Our entire country still *is* segregated. Just not de-jure. Black kids are more likely to be suspended in school, making it easier for them to fall behind (and thus drop out of school, and thus turn to crime/gangs.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/education/black-students-face-more-harsh-discipline-data-shows.html Black men recieve harsher sentences for committing the same crime as white men. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002 Which adds to the fact that the US prison population is disproportionately black http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwoM63BRDK_bf4_MeV3ZEBEiQAuQWqkTEk7Ud98I3OpeuhFBCGmQJCSQ-zpnT612qjQkCRj68aAojz8P8HAQ Combine that with the fact that our prison population has exploded since the 1970s http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/overtime.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwoM63BRDK_bf4_MeV3ZEBEiQAuQWqkW2xmyZNYUlvv-Ype4lFjTMc8ewAAUtjQdZqv5su8-gaAnem8P8HAQ The war on drugs, started by Nixon in 1971, has been explicitly been called an attack on black communities by a former Nixon aid http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html### Assistant: I don't think anyone here is arguing that everything is fair and equal, or that there aren't still many systemic biases that still need to be addressed. However, that pales in comparison to a time when Blacks were not allowed to vote, attend almost any college, live in most neighborhoods, or eat inside restaurants in large portions of the United States. In fact, much of your issues are as much about class as they are about race. Wealthy and middle class Blacks do attend the same schools as Whites, have low incarceration rates like Whites, live in the same neighborhoods as Whites, and go to the same top colleges as Whites. Not to mention, people in public who make racial remarks tend to be heavily stigmatized and racial discrimination in hiring is highly actionable in the court system.### Human: It is obviously better in some ways since the 1960's, but I think it's insane to say that it's "not even close" when it's still so so shitty to be black in America. We're still dealing with a lot of the same issues today as we were then, and new ones like mass incarceration. Hell, voting's harder http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/ And racial discrimination when hiring doesn't have to be explicit http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

### Human: CMV: I believe Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as Income - i.e. All methods by which individuals acquire money for work should be taxed at the same rate.### Assistant: If I receive a pile of stock in return for doing some work, that's not a capital gain. That's regular income, and I'm taxed for the value of the stock at the regular income rate. The capital gains rate comes in later. If I decide in a few years that I'd rather have money than stock, I can sell my stock. If the value has increased, *that's* a capital gain, and it's taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15%. So all methods by which individuals acquire money for work *are* taxed at the same rate.### Human: Meaning that if you received the stock through purchase or through other means you aren't taxed the same, which I believe was OP's point.### Assistant: > Meaning that if you received the stock through purchase or through other means Huh? If I purchase a stock, I'm doing it with income that I paid taxes on.### Human: Unless you're doing it with income from capital gains at which point you are only being taxed 15%.### Assistant: You're only taxed for CG regardless of what you do with the money. Yes, you could buy more stock with it, but that's a non-sequitur.### Human: No it isn't. The argument was made that the original money spent was taxed at the regular rate making the lower tax on capital gains okay. I simply pointed out that that wasn't necessarily the case. You can get money that is taxed lower any number of ways

### Human: I believe that men who have had sex with other men should be able to donate blood if they are HIV negative. CMV### Assistant: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html Male having sex with males (MSM) has by far the biggest correlation with HIV infection. Accounting for 2% of the population, they are 63% of new infections in 2010. In addition, 44% did not know they were infected. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/images/small_msm_chart.jpg As you can see here, the statement "If you have HIV, you are far more likely than not a Man who had sex with another man" is extremely accurate.### Human: Black heterosexual woman aren't a too distant 2nd. With you're argument they should be included as well.### Assistant: They are a *very* distant second. MSM are at 30x the rate, Black heterosexual women are at roughly double.### Human: how do you figure 30x? For new infections it's 2x### Assistant: Do you have a source for the 2x number? I figured 30x from the stats of 63% of new infections being MSM's and them making up 2% of the population.### Human: new infections, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html 28,500 gay men 5,300 heter black women so it's 5x. 5x is not a "very distant second' in my opinion.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: where you getting 2% from? But anyways, it's irrelevant so say in only 15x more likely, still not VERY significant. And, speaking like a politician, when you're talking about the health and welfare of the population shouldn't we take the top two, heck why not the top 3 or five riskiest populations and restrict them from donating? Just to have an abundance of caution? Or they could just ask about number of partners and safe sex practices. Studies show people don't lie about this information. Seems like a few extra questions could take care of this. Just ask "More than 2 sexual partners or any unsafe sex in the last 6 months?".### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: Racism is clearly wrong, but criticism of culture is not wrong if done thoughtfully and in good faith. It should not be equated with racism, and does not make one an asshole.### Assistant: Part of the the trick is in identifying what "culture" to which you're actually referring. Were MLK and Malcolm X criticizing "white culture" when they spoke of the rank racism in the United States or were they criticizing poor, rural, ignorant "culture" and the "culture" of the dominant racial group which happened to be whites; particularly since there were whites who fought and died valiantly in the Civil Rights Movement. When people criticize "black culture" is it really possible to extrapolate that from the culture of apartheid, poverty, or even of abducted occupied colonies? What "culture" is responsible for the massacre in Paris? "Muslim culture?" Is that a thing? Maybe. But such a microscopic percentage of Muslims murder people for displaying the image of Muhammad, it seems odd to draw that conclusion. It's interesting to note how content people often are to criticize "cultures" that are not their own instead of poisonous ideologies that really transcend cultural identities. There are religious lunatics of all faiths who claim to murder as response to some higher power. Do you recall articles condemning Christianity after the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh or the attack in Norway by Anders Breivik? How about long drawn out conversations about Christian Terrorism or white "culture" in general? Of course not. They were regarded by the media as wing nuts with bad ideas, plain and simple. Most often critiques of "cultures" are just facile forms of othering, to make one group feel better and that the other side has ingrained evils that go beyond what we encounter in our superior societies. I don't think you can ask questions about the views beholden to a particular group without also asking what it is that makes them bunch up and hold whatever ideas they happen to hold. Can you really separate the destructive Muslim/Islamic ideologies from the murdering and plundering that's happened there by Israel and the States for the past 70 years? And had it been another group with different religious views in their position would they have similar prevalences of radicals or bad ideas? Is it really that white Americans are just intrinsically evil and have no concept of racism or is it just that they happen to be the primary beneficiaries in an incredibly racist society, and had Africans conquered North America and hauled whites from Europe to work on their plantations our history of colonial oppression might have involved inverted skin complexions? The key as I see it, is to focus on criticizing stupid or dangerous ideas, whose origins are far more multifaceted than just that a bunch of people in one place or with the same skin color happen to think similar things.### Human: I'm not sure that this counters my point. My point was that any ideas, wherever they come from, should be open to criticism. I'm intentionally trying *not* to conflate race and culture and talk about them separately (which seems to not be what you're doing in this comment). Whether on not an idea can be criticized should not be dependent on what culture it came from. If the majority of Christians didn't condone the Oklahoma bombing then making that assertion would be a bad argument. My point is that we should be evaluating ideas based on how good or bad they are. I *do* have a problem with the insinuation that I'm a racist if I criticize the ideas of a religion. That is a set of ideas and not a race. [edit: a word]### Assistant: > Whether on not an idea can be criticized should not be dependent on what culture it came from. It seems that you missed the main point; similar bad ideas come from all sorts of places. It becomes problematic when you cherry pick one and as though it is especially dangerous when far more egregious examples can be found elsewhere. It is also not logically sound to assume that all people who ascribe to a religion hold identical toxic views. Some of them do, but many of them don't. Thus I have recently come to the conclusion that it isn't so important to me if someone claims to believe in God (even though I do not) as long as they hold other morals to be sacrosanct. You're not talking about condemning Muslim culture, you're talking about condemning the idea that anyone should feel justified to murder someone else for mocking or insulting their religious beliefs. There are plenty of Muslims who feel the same way.### Human: > It becomes problematic when you cherry pick one and as though it is especially dangerous when far more egregious examples can be found elsewhere. Should we not prosecute murderers because elsewhere in the world Boko Haram is murdering more people?### Assistant: That is a completely fallacious analogy. Condemning people who commit murder is not the same as ascribing a uniform ideology to all people who are part of a group and saying they should feel collectively guilty.### Human: You're right, but this doesn't address the basic sentiment of my analogy. You were basically saying that when two things exist and one is worse than the other, the lesser is not worth dwelling upon. I disagree. Sure, perhaps the worse one needs to be more of a priority, but the lesser still needs to be addressed.### Assistant: But you're talking about two different things. Condemning senseless violence is altogether different than making facile comments about their cultural origins.### Human: I have already conceded this point. I knew the analogy was flawed when I posted it. Let's instead change it to someone who steals $1000 and someone who steals $10,000. I am aware the analogy is still flawed. Pointing out such does not make your point.

### Human: I think religious faith is not a moral virtue. I believe Faith is actually a moral weakness, an intellectual weakness, and a form of cultural arrogance that is, in essence, a decision to treat your ideology as correct despite knowing that it lacks evidence. CMV.### Assistant: First off, good form with the expansion of the topic. I'm not sure that you can describe moral virtue without some degree of faith. What moral system do you have that is objectively real and doesn't rely on faith in what is "good" or "bad". What are your objective and universal value judgments that allow you to evaluate religious faith as a moral failing? For example, you could say that murder is bad because of the effect that it has on the society/species or because of the Kantian categorical imperative, but that first requires that you value the species (and certain characteristics of that society) or that you accept the validity of the categorical imperative. Neither one can be considered objectively true. You have to arbitrarily believe they are correct. You point to certain extrapolations of Hindu views, but those same views are held by some libertarians or capitalists who are not operating under religious rules. A secular set of ideas led to the same outcome. That suggests that religious faith is not the errant variable in both equations. There is also nothing about religious faith that prohibits reevaluation of certain ideas. Most religions stress that the individual is never perfect, which implies that at any given moment a significant portion of their understanding of their own faith is incorrect.### Human: > I'm not sure that you can describe moral virtue without some degree of faith. What moral system do you have that is objectively real and doesn't rely on faith in what is "good" or "bad". What are your objective and universal value judgments that allow you to evaluate religious faith as a moral failing? Suffering is bad. Happiness is good. I think those are the axioms upon which I derive my definition of morality. Something immoral, to me, is generally something that unnecessarily increases suffering and/or unnecessarily decreases happiness. I don't know that those axioms really require faith. I think we viscerally understand that suffering is bad and that happiness is good.### Assistant: Those are entirely subjective. Something being viscerally understood does not equate to objective truth, nor is it a valid assertion to say that everyone shares the same visceral feeling. Even if they did, we have evidence that things aren't so cut and dried: Is suffering categorically bad? What about the pain in your legs after climbing a mountain or the pain when you touch fire that teaches you never to do it again? Natural disasters cause suffering, are they immoral despite a total lack of sentience or volition? Is happiness categorically good? What about happiness gained from bullying or exploitation of others? A violent person may find happiness in beating a random person senseless, does that mean his feelings are moral? You qualify your ideas of morality with "unnecessarily" on both counts. That implies that there are necessary abridgments of both axioms, and that suggests that neither of these are categorical axioms and you are applying them as a means to get to something else. I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that you believe these things despite there being no objective basis for their validity **is** faith; and that faith is not functionally different from general religious faith.### Human: > Those are entirely subjective. Something being viscerally understood does not equate to objective truth, nor is it a valid assertion to say that everyone shares the same visceral feeling. Of course. Senses like feelings are subjective. But sensorium is all that exists to you, the subject. And you are all that exists, as far as you KNOW, using that word in the strictest sense. We could argue that all else is faith, but I think that would be overlooking the massive practical difference between faith and justified belief.### Assistant: That didn't really address most of my arguments. There is a difference between accepting sensory data as real and accepting a gut feeling as real. Accepting my gut feeling as an accurate representation of truth is a very simplified justification for my being a Christian; I am trusting that my gut feeling that there is a God and that He is accurately represented by Christianity is true. Consider somebody viewing a depiction of rape. In some people, that would arouse conflicting and confusing visceral feelings. One could easily feel that the act itself is wrong but be uncomfortably (or comfortably) aroused by the sexualized imagery. They may enjoy it to the point where they indulge in pornographic depictions of rape performed by consenting parties. Is what they are doing moral or immoral? I think you might have been alluding to falsifiability (both in your OP and response), but your gut feelings aren't falsifiable. Trusting them is an act of faith. That's different from our assumptions about the reality of our perceptions. I *need* to trust my senses, but I don't need to trust that I'm forming correct conclusions on complex matters via sensory input. Those are separate things I have to prove *using* sensory input. You don't have sensory input that's proving your claims; you have sensory input that leads you to conclude things you can't prove.### Human: But it is functionally different. Faith in god creates testable predictions (or, even worse, self-contradictions). Once this is realised, that faith should be abandoned or replaced by a more viable belief. In the case of subjective value judgements, there aren't testable predictions, and we have no a priori knowledge that disproves those judgements. So yes, we do take some things on faith, but that doesn't mean that all faiths are equally likely to be true. Edit: I'm replying to the wrong post, aren't I?### Assistant: I don't know if you're replying to me, but it seems topical so I'll respond. :) Faith in God doesn't inherently create testable predictions, though certain tenets of religious belief might. Since religious faith does not *require* testable predictions, then it stands on the same level as any other form of arbitrary belief. The thing that many people (most notably Richard Dawkins) don't realize is that there is no objectively valid way of assessing the validity of those claims. You can't assess the relative likelihood of two sets of moral ideas being correct without first embracing value judgments that aren't based in any objective truths that can be used to evaluate their relative validity.### Human: >You can't assess the relative likelihood of two sets of moral ideas being correct without first embracing value judgments that aren't based in any objective truths that can be used to evaluate their relative validity. I thought this might be brought up, and it's a good point. I'm curious as to whether you think this applies in the case of self-contradictory beliefs though. Would you consider the foundations of logic to be an object of faith? This is, of course, relevant to this thread because self-contradictions (and testable predictions) exist in the standard religions to which OP is presumably referring. Self-contradictions also arguably exist inherently in the idea of a god.### Assistant: If we consider faith in the broadest possible way, I think that it's the only way out of solipsism. There is a difference between saying that we must assume that solipsism is invalid for all practical purposes and saying that we believe that the world exists as we see it. If we don't constantly offer the caveat that we might be brains in pans within our internal dialogue, we are indulging in faith. So in a certain sense, I would agree that logic is based on faith. We have faith that the cause-effect relationships we see are constant and reflective of the truth; that 2+2 will always equal 4. Every method we have of determining truth is essentially descriptive of what we see, not prescriptive of what must be. Saying that a religion is self-contradictory or contains anything testable is problematic because it treats that religion as a homogeneous entity. There is a broad range of belief within every religion I'm aware of, so treating them in wide swaths virtually guarantees that mistakes born of generalization will occur. I'm curious as to what contradictions you're referring to; both in religions and especially those you believe that are inherent in the idea of God.### Human: In the case of standard religions, I'm treating the teachings of sacred texts and religious organisations as a part of religious belief. The contradictions are then either self-contradictions between the texts and organisations, or external contradictions with physical evidence (e.g. creation myths, the problem of evil), or contradictions with other beliefs (such as a conflict between moral intuition and religious teachings). More or less the standard arguments against religion. As for the inherent contradictions, I was thinking along the lines of the omnipotence paradox. Depending on how you define a god, other paradoxes might also arise. Of course, it's worth noting that these arguments are contentious, and there are also plenty of arguments that attempt to prove the *a priori* existence of god, although I haven't found any that are particularly convincing so far.### Assistant: From my own perspective, I don't see those contradictions as inherent problems with religious faith or even (necessarily) specific religious doctrines. The only places where I see that being particularly valid are in regard to doctrines that demand entirely literal interpretation of texts; and those are invariably weak in their epistemologies because literal interpretation of such large works leads to inevitable contradiction...so they barely bother actually doing any comparative study and focus on reinforcing their existing beliefs. I view that as a fundamentally dishonest and unfaithful (nay, *heretical*) use of the texts. If you're willing even to accept the possibility of metaphor, a lot (if not all) of those contradictions either go away or are subject to debate and consideration. The omnipotence paradox is a good example of this. The answer to the question (why would God X allow negative Y) is actually pretty simple: because there must be an objective to His actions that requires things we perceive as evil. The why or what of *that* is what's worth talking about. The weak and hackneyed term for this is "God has a plan", but I think that's just a simplistic dismissal of the question. I'm concerned with what the plan is. My personal belief is that God intends to create free beings who choose to follow Him of their own will and that that freedom necessitates a world with entropy, imperfection and evil. If everything were perfect or even good, we would have no experience of God's opposite. To make a truly free choice, we need to be exposed to a world where God does not intervene to save us (physically), where bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people, where everything good we do is not rewarded or acknowledged and we can actually find a measure of happiness doing things that God doesn't want us to do. I don't *know* that, but it's what I believe and it makes sense to me.### Human: >The omnipotence paradox is a good example of this. Sorry, what is it a good example of? Just to make sure we're on the same page: by the omnipotence paradox, I mean the question "can a god create something so heavy that they cannot lift it?" As for the rest of your reply, I personally find your viewpoint difficult to accept, but I can see where you're coming from.### Assistant: Derp...my bad. Tired Grunt mistook omnipotence paradox for the omnicient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent problem. I honestly view the omnipotence paradox as something of a linguistic parlor trick. I think we're just exploiting the weakness of our language to ask questions that can't be answered, then assume that if we can't answer them, they are unanswerable. Maybe God is fully capable of dividing by zero or creating something so heavy He can't lift it, but I can't explain that because we don't have methods of reasoning that incorporate those possibilities. Maybe God is entirely outside the restrictions we experience and "heavy" is a concept of very little consequence to him. I don't know the answer, but I don't think the question is a valid reason to disregard God.

### Human: CMV: Being "offended" in a discussion about ideas is at best a distraction, at worst a weasely way to deflect challenging reasoning, and people with integrity should not resort to it.### Assistant: I've been in debates on reddit where the other person has very quickly resorted to personal insults, and I have told them I will not continue to discuss with them if they do not refrain from using personal insults, and they have reacted with a view much like the one you are presenting here, as if I should overlook their rude and insulting manner, as if there is something wrong with both me and my argument if I would end the debate due to their manner ... but my answer to that is that if you resort to offensive personal attacks, then *you* are the one who stepped outside of the rational debate and into the realms of emotional reaction.### Human: Personal insults are worse than useless but if you have great strength of character you can ignore them and benefit from any value the conversation has.### Assistant: If the other person has such a valuable opinion, why do they need to resort to personal insults? It undermines their presentation and makes it look as if their opinion cannot stand on its own merit.### Human: its not about them having to. but isn't it their choice to use whatever fucking language they want? is that not everyone's right? if word choice prevents you from having meaningful discussion you're the problem.### Assistant: Yes of course it's your choice to say whatever you like, and it's my choice to walk away from your vulgarity.### Human: and if you are the one who stops discourse because of those mean words, then you're the problem, you're the reason progress can't be made because you're throwing a tantrum about someone not playing the right way according to you.### Assistant: No, I think the one who is being deliberately offensive is the one who is introducing a problem into the discussion.### Human: there is nothing deliberately offensive about it. you are adding that meaning, *you* find it offensive. to plenty of us they're just words, no different from any other, and not "taboo" or "unspeakable" so no you can not say that they are being deliberately offensive just because *you* find it offensive, how self centered are you? nobody tells you how to talk, or what to say, what do you think gives you the right to govern the speech of others?### Assistant: > there is nothing deliberately offensive about it. you are adding that meaning, you find it offensive. to plenty of us they're just words, no different from any other, and not "taboo" or "unspeakable" Personal insults are close to universal. I can call someone a bastard, for example, and be sure how they will react. I know what I intended; they know what I intended. They know what I meant; I know what I meant. Accidents happen, of course, but we all know precisely what "fuck you" means.### Human: we weren't discussing personal insults... we were discussing colorful language... two ***vastly*** different things.### Assistant: The post chain began with a guy challenging the OP by saying >...if you resort to offensive personal attacks, then you are the one who stepped outside of the rational debate and into the realms of emotional reaction. and the OP responded with > Personal insults are worse than useless but if you have great strength of character you can ignore them and benefit from any value the conversation has. The conversation was definitely about personal insults.

### Human: CMV: The Scandinavian system of setting the cost of fees to the ability to pay is the most fair system### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I certainly agree that revenue should primarily be generated by taxes. but also think that there is an advantage to additional revenue being generated by higher fees against people who can afford it. and I agree with you that not all fines may be suitable to be progressively assessed. I haven't considered the circumstances where it is best or not best. though, my gut impulse is that it is generally better than not to use a progressive assessment. they seem particularly suited for areas where punishment is an intended result. as i pointed out, it seems the data implies that raising a fee above a certain point does not change behavior much. EDIT: Clarity### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I don't think taxation is bad per se, so I don't mind hidden taxation by default. It can be bad, if it is having bad side effects. but that is not necessarily true in this case. I mentioned elsewhere, that the improper application of the law is not evidence that the law itself is bad. Law enforcement officials may be absolutely fair and not be perverted by a law of this nature. and this CMV is not about whether law enforcement are bad at applying the law, but about whether the type of law itself is fair. how does it suggest non-intentional behavior? and why does the intention to commit the crime make a difference in whether the wealth of the person committing the crime shields them from the effects of being caught?### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Do you really think this would be hidden taxation? I mean, Im sure the people of Finland know the risks of getting a massive fine if they are caught speeding. they might not know whether it is exactly 54,024 Euro fine of not, but they know the consequences. I don't think the hidden taxation is a major argument. Though I do agree that a downside to this type of tax is that it is clear what the costs of an action will be. >If law enforcement can't be trusted to apply the law fairly, then why does it matter if the law itself is fair. Laws are for men, not for angels, therefore it matters if men, with their fallible and corruptible nature, can be expected to enforce them fairly. Well, I don't think really any law in the USA is currently applied fairly. the poor have an impossible burden in defending themselves against any charge. Does that mean that the underlying statute is wrong? no. It doesn't even mean that the sentencing guidelines are bad. but that the courts, the police are bad... I can't blame the law for that. >Because the punishment for the crime is not a deterrent. The ever increasing penalty based on wealth is probably not a deterrent, but the fact that it is a big fine is. But you're missing the point for the progressive assessment in the first place, it's not deterrence, but fairness. >criminal indifference and/or negligence right, see, i don't think speeding is always blatantly intentional, but it can be argued to be indifferent or negligent. so, if you are making the argument that indifference or negligence are intent, then we are on the same page. I considered those distinct.### Assistant: [deleted]

### Human: CMV: In a capitalist society, it is completely reasonable for men to make more money than women.### Assistant: That is literally not what socialist feminism is. Or at least that's not what Marxist feminism is. Marxist feminism asserts that women were made subservient to men, by men, for the interests of capitalism, and that the oppression is so tied to capitalism that, even if you somehow eliminated it, you'd still have oppression along other lines (race, sexuality, etc) that would potentially be worse than before. Therefore dismantling capitalism is the only way to end oppression. Among the left, the idea that women's oppression is solely derived from biology is an idea pretty much only believed by trans exclusionary radical feminists, a particularly small and terrible movement. Heck, in early hunter gatherer tribes, gatherers, who were mostly if not entirely women, provided upwards of 80% of the food.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [citation needed]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Precapitalist systems share characteristics with modern capitalism like in sweden or the us### Human: in other words, capitalism is so evil it travels back in time to oppress people!### Assistant: ...no, division of labor, defined roles in society, and a class structure are what they have in common.### Human: in other words, they have the features of all human societies bigger than 150 people. how dare they!### Assistant: Google capitalism.

### Human: CMV: A man in this article divorced his wife because she moaned her ex's name on the wedding night. I agree with the guy.### Assistant: The story never happened. This is one of the fake stories advice columnists make up to get a rise out of people.### Human: Well regardless. It's his view that such an action under those circumstances would be justified. Don't be thick.### Assistant: Except it's a bit difficult to discuss a purposefully vague story designed by the writer to be inflammatory, while leaving out key details. Imagine If I tell you the following story: "Jack shot Tom in the face, killing him. I think Jack was wrong. CMV." Do you have nearly enough data to even begin a discussion?### Human: Yeah, You're being pretty thick right now. OP's view is quite clear. Based on the known information in the article, Which you allege was written to be *intentionally inflammatory* (something that you are unable to provide concrete evidence to support) OP supports the guy. Also yes. We could begin to discuss the shooting based on all known information.### Assistant: >We could begin to discuss the shooting based on all known information. Go ahead. Begin the discussion. Let's see who is being thick here. P.S. > Which you allege was written to be intentionally inflammatory (something that you are unable to provide concrete evidence to support) OP supports the guy. It is very telling that OP is not really participating in the discussion in this thread.### Human: Well. Based on The information you gave me I believe the shooting is one of 2 things. Justifiable homicide in self defense. Unjustifiable homicide. Then I would ask why *you* think jack was wrong. And then we would go from there, discussing your beliefs on why jack is wrong, and how those beliefs may or may not support, or line up with reality. If OP isn't participating, that's dumb, but a separate issue. His view is clear and I am done talking about this. Thanks for playing 0/### Assistant: >Justifiable homicide in self defense. >Unjustifiable homicide. Or it was an accident, or it was war, or they were playing a video game, etc etc. Basically there is nothing for you to pin this one way or another. Any discussion aside from "there are not enough facts to judge" is just troll feeding.

### Human: CMV: There are no swing voters and policy doesn't matter. Last 4 presidents were only determined by excited/bored Democrats.### Assistant: I do agree that political insiders think that most voters decide who to vote for by doing a "closest to the pin" with their political views, when in reality a multitude of factors including charisma of the candidates decide who voters will vote for. However, I think your conclusion is a bit premature. For one is assumes Obama and Clinton are centrists, which compared to Sanders might be true, but [compared to the rest of the establishment Democrats is not](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/). Also, I would claim that Kerry is a lot more boring than Gore. Gore was charismatic enough to make a very successful documentary, and Kerry won 3 purple hearts. You can make the argument about the Iraq war being what increased democrat turnout but that is a policy issue not a candidate charisma issue. Overall people love to create voter trends and draw vast conclusions about what election results mean. However, often times people vote a certain way for far more specific reason having to do with that election. Yes Hillary wasn't as charismatic as Obama and that probably lost her votes; however, the constant allegation that she was corrupt also played a huge part. Yes Obama was very charismatic and that helped his turnout, but so did a recession in 2008 and the fact he was a sitting president in 2012. Elections are really complicated, and so it would make sense that the reasons people do and do not vote are likewise complicated.### Human: > Gore was charismatic enough to make a very successful documentary, and Kerry won 3 purple hearts. You can make the argument about the Iraq war being what increased democrat turnout but that is a policy issue not a candidate charisma issue. Gore wasn't charismatic when he was running, though. I think Inconvenient Truth Gore would have been President Gore, personally. This was something repeatedly pointed out by folks I know when he came back with charisma and conviction -- that was notably missing from his 2000 campaign.### Assistant: You may be right; I did not follow the 2000 election that closely until after the voting, but I stand by that John Kerry was also boring.### Human: Well, yeah, But John Kerry lost too...### Assistant: Yes but Kerry got nearly 8 million more voters than Gore did. OPs point was Republican voter turnout is always the same (even though Bush's turnout increased by 12 million from 2000-2004), and Democratic turnout is determined by how charismatic the candidate it. So the 2004 election is inconsistent with that theory in 2 ways.### Human: I can't explain the variation in Republican turnout before. Looking for a good theory to fit that. Any ideas?### Assistant: Could it be possible that while Democratic voter turnout is primarily determined by excitement, Republican voter turnout, which has been numerically less outside of Bush's incumbent election for this millennium, is motivated by either a)a Republican incumbent or b)a specifically large fear of either massive change or a corrupt person? I think trends based off this election are difficult as well because of the extreme polarization and vast differentness in candidates from typical candidates. You had someone who has probably had more political experience than any other candidate ever vs. someone who had zero political experience. That is an anomaly in itself. In addition, due to her long time in office, Hillary had a much longer history across different political times in the US of political actions to draw upon for attacks, whereas nobody could really attack Trump on previous policy issues because there weren't any as he'd never been a politician. Just a thought.

### Human: I am a leftist, and a liberal, and do not believe in gun control, CMV### Assistant: What do you define as gun control? If I'm for universal background checks am I for gun control?### Human: Ah. I should clarify. I mean the banning and restriction of firearms to the general populace as is prevalent in the UK. You need a firearms certificate from the police (quite difficult to obtain and requring the surrender of many details to the police) to possess any at all, and semi-automatic rifles are effectively off-limits to normal citizens. There are also strict penalties attached to the unlicensed posession of a live firearms round.### Assistant: I agree a gun can be use as a tool and can be useful. Certain chemicals can also be used as tools that benefit society. Both however can be harmful when used by untrained and reckless people. I work at a place that has dangerous substances used as a useful tool. To obtain and use them workers need to gain qualifications that are difficult to obtain and require surrendering of personal information. Do you think just because something can be used as a tool it means it should be easy to obtain by the general population?### Human: Information is a tool, and can be harmful to some. Do you agree with the push in the US to pass legislation that would require journalists to be licensed by the government in order to receive their constitutional right to free speech and protection from government retaliation? We can talk about what-ifs all day, but the only what-if that history has shown to be always true is governments tendency to take more and more power unto itself until it devolves into full tyranny.### Assistant: Free speech already has some restrictions on it though. There are lines that all individuals set and decide when the line is crossed.### Human: By that you mean unwritten rules. ie you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. These are the basic rules of society that do not need a central power to tell people they can't break them under threat of coercive violence and force. Are you saying that because it is socially unacceptable to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, it is also ok to give the government the go-ahead to unconstitutionally prosecute "unlicensed" journalists for revealing information that is harmful to the ruling class?### Assistant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions There are more exceptions then just yelling fire in a theater. The point you originally made is, if there are restrictions on guns, why not speech? The fact is there is already restrictions. Now, where do we draw the line? That's for society to decide through voting and representation. How do we decide of a passed law is constitutional? Through the supreme court. So it's up to american people to decide if this proposed law is what we want as a society and act accordingly.