post_id
stringlengths 5
6
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.58
1
| history
stringlengths 34
18.6k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.3B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.3B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
14.3k
| score_B
int64 2
4.75k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 1
9.21k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 2
9.66k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 7
227k
| score_ratio
float64 1.01
467
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aj8r5m | asksocialscience_test | 0.88 | Why do communities in small towns tend to be more conservative and more religious? Is there a relationship between the two? As a citizen of a small town, I was wondering why this seems to be the case in every small town I visit, especially my town! Thanks in advance for sharing your insight! | eetm5vj | eetv8qw | 1,548,304,879 | 1,548,314,721 | 13 | 14 | Maybe read *FantasyLand* which describes a 500-year history of the U.S., as waves of immigrants on Hopium coming to establish communities of "Faith" and consequently allowing others to do the same. Folk in the country may be more likely to be a single community (example Amish), while cities may be more diverse and tolerant of others. | Not trying to explain it, just adding an observation - the rural / conservative, urban / progressive correlation is not limited to any country or even to the present day. In Germany in the 1930s, rural areas were clearly more conservative, and voted much more in favor of Hitler and his xenophobic policies. Source: The Third Reich trilogy by Richard J. Evans. | 0 | 9,842 | 1.076923 |
39tuov | asksocialscience_test | 0.97 | Is there a Historical explanation/ theory for how the Cow came to be sacred in Hinduism I've always been taught that in the Abrahamic religions (especially Judaism and Islam), pigs were prohibited from being eaten because there weren't sufficient sanitation technologies to prepare pigs safely for human consumption when these religions formed and established influence. Is there a similar explanation or theory regarding why cows in Hinduism are regarded as sacred (outside of religious teach or mythology)? | cs6f7ak | cs6foad | 1,434,310,901 | 1,434,311,817 | 6 | 15 | This isn't an answer to your question, but pig prohibition in the Levant is not a settled question, and there's a lot of discussion. Pigs were widely raised and consumed in the Levant and Mesopotamia during the Bronze age, so it's not exactly clear why it became prohibited for some during the Iron age. Here's a cool paper with some discussion on the topic. | Marvin Harris had some ideas about why the cow is sacred: http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant475/Readings/r2.pdf He also had some thoughts on the prohibition of pig: http://etnologija.etnoinfolab.org/dokumenti/82/2/2009/harris_1521.pdf His explanations mainly rely on cultural ecology. Basically, he thinks that oxen are highly important for Indian agriculture since all of the plowing needs to happen simultaneously to take advantage of the monsoon season. This means that oxen cannot be shared as in other places. Cows make oxen so they are important. During the drought period the cows often need to supplement their diets by foraging far and wide. He also points out that after they die from natural causes they will be eaten by un-touchables and non-hindus. | 0 | 916 | 2.5 |
8fbrit | asksocialscience_test | 0.87 | What keeps so many people from internalizing sociology and psychology? No matter if you go politically left or right, people always seem to not be able to really grasp the consequences of psychological/sociological imagination. They always think they know the basics and agree with those disciplines on a shallow level, but then go into tangents that show how they do not really see social or personal phenomena through the lens of those sciences. It often means they will switch to antiscientific, hyper-individualist perspective (regardless if they are talking about nationalism or gender identity) and shut you off. Is there any literature on the topic? Some comparisons between societies or countries? Or maybe even essays by famous sociologists or psychologists on the popular "understanding" of their disciplines? | dy2jw8c | dy2asws | 1,524,849,660 | 1,524,842,015 | 100 | 14 | This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is *specifically* about Sociology or Psychology. I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents). Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner. A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare "fraud") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare *do* have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare "cheaters" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child *while* receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood/mischaracterized social issue in American society. Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think *social* science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. "well, i've never experienced blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated" or "well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either "elitist" or "not real science" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds. Once I saw a question on r/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, "Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838" or "Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie" lol. I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead: [Anti-Intellectualism in American Life The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. | I don't have a short answer to this question, but Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow really gets into the issues between knowing about psychological phenomena, and actually applying the concepts day to day. Basically, knowing about bias and how they affect social phenomena doesn't necessarily make an individual better at internalizing the introspective evaluation necessary to evaluate one's own biases. This can become especially obvious when the bias is an ideological belief. | 1 | 7,645 | 7.142857 |
3rcnoa | asksocialscience_test | 0.89 | Why are "gay meccas" usually larger cities, while "lesbian meccas" are usually smaller towns? (In the United States, at least.) | cwmywqo | cwmx2c3 | 1,446,566,668 | 1,446,563,820 | 121 | 11 | Here's an Autostraddle article entitled "Where Do the Lesbians Live?". Essentially; * lesbians are more likely to start families, which is easier/cheaper in rural areas * the inevitable gentrification of gay meccas tends to force out lesbians before it ousts gay men because of systematic factors such as the wage gap * historical associations with butch identities has a tendency to tie lesbians to rural/farming areas and rural women/lesbian communes and farming cooperatives are very popular in the community > “Lesbian couples are more likely than gay ones to live in rural areas, in part because they seek different things from their hometowns,” Francie Diep writes in The Geography of Queer Folks, summarizing Lisa Wade’s conclusions. “For example, lesbian couples are much more likely than gay couples to be raising children, the costs of which might be lower outside of cities.” This is perhaps consistent with a recent survey that showed most same-sex couples raising children are doing so in the South. Or, as Lisa Wade summed up one theory on why lesbians might be more comfortable in the rural south than gay men: “If being “butch” is normative for people living in rural environments, lesbians who perform masculinity might fit in better than gay men who don’t.” There’s also a strong tradition of rural lesbian communes and rural queer women’s lands, which continues today. | I'm not an expert, but can anyone tell me if 'islands of acceptance' are an actual phenomenon? My first thought was that areas where social homosexual acceptance is the norm might exist in rural and urban areas. I thought it also might be more easily advertised/remembered/memified (I don't know the word) if it were a specific town instead of a few streets in San Francisco, but I feel that's tenuous speculation on top of another tenuous speculation, which is why I am asking instead of just expositing. | 1 | 2,848 | 11 |
4he0d3 | asksocialscience_test | 0.95 | Can someone explain to me what happened to Venezuela's economy? | d2pa4uf | d2pcsra | 1,462,162,721 | 1,462,169,010 | 5 | 275 | Piggybacking on the post to request books related to the subject. | Price controls are near universally frowned upon by economists. It's where the government says, by decree, that something must be traded for "exactly X" (or more than X, or less than X). It somewhat defeats the market process - instead of something getting more expensive as it gets scarcer or increases in demand, it simply runs out of stock. Or vice versa, you end up with more for sale than can be sold, with the producers unable to sell their wares. Everyone price controls to some degree though - a minimum wage is an example, rent control in some markets are another example. There are academic defences of the minimum wage, but we'd all be lying if we were to say there's no disadvantages/problems caused by it. The point of all this, is that Venezuela for a long time has been attempting to price control *everything*. From the price of toilet paper, through to wages, through to electricity, through to even the currency itself. The latter is a huge one. In Venezuela, the currency must be exchanged for USD at a price decreed by the government. This isn't a fixed exchange rate in the traditional sense (where the central bank builds up "reserves" and then sells them at a fixed price) - Venezuela has attempted to do the same purely through decree. The problem with this, is that they overvalue the currency so much that you can't actually trade at the official rate. Nobody (or few) will sell you USD for the price the government says they must. Markets are all incredibly interconnected, we all depend on foreign trade for prosperity - but even operating a business in Venezuela you're shut out from all of this. Only well connected individuals can buy USD from the government at the official rate, otherwise you're stuck applying for "allowances" through application processes that take who-knows-how-long. This means the only way to actually import en-masse in Venezuela is by breaking the law. Using black market currency traders. Can you imagine running a business like that? Oh. Not that you'd want to operate a business - as per the toilet paper article, if the government feels you're not running with the country's interests at heart, it'll just seize it. This makes everyone incredibly suspicious about investing in the country, and avoiding it completely. So you have inability to export, inability to import, inability to set your own prices, a government that will seize your company on a whim... all acting to reduce "aggregate supply". There's chokes on absolutely everything - you cannot buy foreign stuff, you cannot employ workers except at wages decreed by government, and then you can't even sell your goods except at prices also decreed by the government. Anyway. With trashed supply, come shortages and/or raising prices (price controls be damned). The government attempts to address all these by bringing in tougher price controls, but they're doomed to fail too. Their economy is choked from top to bottom by controls on everything, people can't produce stuff, can't sell stuff, etc. And with a weak economy comes a low (and falling) exchange rate. Well, it would, except that's price controlled too (so read: falling black market exchange rate). Then hit oil price crashes. Venezuela has more oil than anyone else (which goes to show how spectacularly shockingly they're being run), which accounts for nearly all their exports - again no doubt largely due to the illegality of currency exchange. So oil price crashes, and their entirely non-diversified economy sinks with it. Adding on to all of these (even with terrible management economies tend to persevere until there's a combination of things - they're nowhere near as fragile as we think), they've been hit by the worst drought in 47 years. With the drought 3 years running, their dams are now on the brink of empty. For a country that depends on hydro for 73% of their power generation, that's a *huge problem*. One that undoubtedly could have been avoided with better management and contingency planning, but Venezuela has anything but good management. So what do they do? Well, reduce the number of workdays. Send people home from public sector jobs. Roll blackouts. All things further constricting aggregate supply, further making it harder/impossible to run a business. With reduced aggregate supply, you can basically either take measures to reduce aggregate demand (like raising taxes), or let inflation erode people's living standards for you. The latter can be extra problematic, as inflation means lower real interest rates, encouraging people to spend further: it can *increase* aggregate demand and trigger all kinds of terrible feedback loops (like getting wage increases due to inflation due to wage increase, etc). Venezuela has all that, but then also a bunch of price controlled stuff experiencing shortages, and just generally the economy is undergoing a slow collapse. It's fascinating to watch. Oh. And I forgot another big one: they happen to owe a lot of foreign currencies. Somehow, the country needs to bring in USD to repay those public debts. Combine that with the collapse in the export sector, collapse in the electricity sector, massive inflation and shortages out of the wazoo... and yeh, good luck to them with that. If you ask me (and I'm definitely no authority on the matter), one of the biggest mistakes they made was price controlling their currency. Currencies should be free floating, fixed or managed if you absolutely must, but making it illegal to trade except at a government-determined rate is just the worst possible system excusable never. Argentina until last year had the same system and there is just really not a single thing to recommend it for. Well, that and/or deciding to seize businesses willy-nilly. Actually, that latter one's probably even worse. Sigh. | 0 | 6,289 | 55 |
djpf9v | asksocialscience_test | 0.86 | Has the anti-vaccination stance moved from the far left to the far right or is that just my perception? I feel like the anti-vaccination movement has been around forever, though admittedly they were far less visible before social media. When I was young, however, it was the super left-wing hippy types who wanted everything to be "all natural" and feared "Chemicals" but now it seems like most of the anti-vaccine voices are right wing anti-government types. Is there documentation of this shift, and is it real or is my experience not reflective of the overall trend? | f46vyv2 | f47jkb4 | 1,571,414,147 | 1,571,423,241 | 5 | 49 | Historically it’s always been the well educated, high socioeconomic status group. They exist on the left and right of the political spectrum. | " Our findings demonstrate that ideology has a direct effect on vaccine attitudes. In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals. Furthermore, ideology also has an indirect effect on immunization propensity. The ideology variable predicts an indicator capturing trust in government medical experts, which in turn helps to explain individual-level variation with regards to attitudes about vaccine choice. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/ | 0 | 9,094 | 9.8 |
1dh75x | asksocialscience_test | 0.81 | Mod / Meta] Question for eligible panelists who have not applied for flair, a few subreddit stats, and a friendly reminder to report bad answers! Hi everybody, I'd like to share a few stats with you first. Right now, we're averaging between 50 and 80 new subscribers each day, which is great! However.. we are presently only receiving applications for flair once or twice a week. This means that for every 250 or so new subscribers, we only have 1 or 2 people applying for flair. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the subreddit's subscription rate is outpacing the growth of our panelists by a significant margin. So, it would help us out quite a bit if you could answer the following questions: 1. Are you an expert in one of the social science's but haven't applied for flair? 2. If yes to the first question, what is stopping you from applying? 3. What do you think we can do to attract more active panelists/contributors? On an unrelated note, I want to remind people that this is AskSocialScience, *not* AskSocialOpinions or AskSocialAnecdotes. Although anecdotes and opinions can help further a discussion, they alone are not suitable for an answer here. As you may have noticed, the mod-team has really cracked down on top-tiered comments that aren't up to the standards that we (the mods) and our users would like to see in the subreddit. You can help us out a lot by reporting bad answers! If you have any confusion about what is encouraged and what is discouraged here.. **[Please check the rules page**. | c9qgaxi | c9qg6l7 | 1,367,433,412 | 1,367,433,117 | 4 | 2 | I don't want to risk my tenure just because I like to call out other economists for talking drivel. | I haven't applied for flair because I have only just received my bachelor's degree (in politics and law), because the kind of question I would feel comfortable answering does not come up often (international relations theory, security studies, European Union), and because I would rather not disclose any information and/or certification about my identity. I am happy with the direction this sub has been taking though and want to thank the mods for their work. I feel it is actively improving everything about this sub, please keep it up! | 1 | 295 | 2 |
10g1ih | asksocialscience_test | 0.81 | Will the children born today write by hand and own (physical) books when they grow up? So, we had a bit of an interesting debate around the lunch table at work today, about the impact that technology in general and iPads and the like in particular is having and will have on those growing up today. During this discussion, a colleague of mine made the following claims: - Children born today won't really learn to write by hand, since they'll never have reason to do so, and will exclusively type as adults. - Amongst children born today having one bookcase full with books in your home when you are in your 20s-30s will be a rarity. - Public libraries will disappear rather rapidly because no-one will read printed books anymore but simply use electronic readers. Now, we didn't have time to go into it in detail, but his stance seemed to be based mostly on the idea that electronic tools like this are more practical and now widely available and that there simply won't be a reason to keep writing by hand and reading printed books. Although I do think that electronic readers and the like will have a big impact on people's reading habits, I felt his claims were rather rash on the following grounds: - Technology changes things, but not always as quickly as people predict. When I was a kid and computers had just become/were just becoming a common household object everyone was on about "the paper-free office" which was bound to soon become a reality. As an administrator, I can verify that very large amounts of papers are still being shuffled around offices. - Electronics of this sort are only affordable (or at least, affordable on a scale where each child in a family has their own in addition to those owned by the parents) to certain demographics in certain societies (that is, financially stable people in industrial societies). This still leaves many, many people depending wholly or partially on "old school" pen and paper, and it seems to be that a complete switch would only be plausible if it effected an entire society. I feel that affordability will remain an issue for quite some time, even if prices are bound to decrease gradually. - Electricity is fickle. My own country has very stable electricity and generally good internet coverage, but blackouts still do happen occasionally. Additionally, leaving your charger at the house by accident happens so unless battery life goes up a LOT or public charging stations or somesuch become widely available, it's still likely that people would occasionally end up in situations were scribbling something on a piece of paper will be the best/only way of leaving someone a message or retaining information or a reminder to yourself. - It seems to me that most kids are introduced to pens/pencils not by writing but by drawing! Although drawing on electronic mediums can be fun for users of all ages, but drawing with pen and paper strikes me as stimulating in a different way (physically selecting colors, being able to cut and paste and get the whole 3D thing that you can't get on a screen). Additionally, even while drawing on a tablet, most people (in my experience anyway) still use a stylus which, let's face it, is basically a pen so even a child growing up in a crayon-free house would be somewhat accustomed to the mechanics of working a pen/pencil. - Practicality/durability. Tablets and the like can probably be great tools for learning and entertainment for kids, if used right, but they simply cannot take the same abuse (at the same cost) as a plain piece of paper or a kids' books (I'm thinking particularly of those cardboard books for young toddlers who don't yet read). In order for something to replace pen and paper for kids, I think it would need to be possible to be used without parental supervision or perhaps rather, with intermittent parental supervision. Although electronics seems to gradually be getting more durable, I have a feeling that it'll be a long time before a tablet can be drooled on, dropped, bitten, flung across the room, ripped at and juggled with at as low a cost (and as low a risk of personal injury) as a sheet of paper can. - And, lastly, that human behavior to such a large part is transmitted down through the generations. Even if a 20-something 30 years from now wouldn't have any *practical* reason to write by hand and read paper books, they would still have parents, relatives, teachers, bosses etc who were doing it and chances are that would mean that they would've learned to do it too. For this reason, if non-electronic text ever falls completely out of fashion, I think it will take a lot longer than the time it'll take for children being born today to grow up. Okay, sorry for that little wall of text, I got a tad carried away! What I wanted to ask you kind and knowledgeable people is: what do you think about these arguments (on both sides)? Will people stop writing by hand? Will books become an entirely electronic thing? And, if so, what sort of time-span are we talking about here? Really I'm just curious about the topic in general, whether any studies have been made on it so far and what the predictions of those in relevant fields are on the topic? Thanks for reading! | c6d5qfi | c6d5xiz | 1,348,577,597 | 1,348,578,832 | 6 | 25 | Excellent question. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write up such a thoroughly detailed post to share with the reddit community. I don't have an answer as a professional social scientist, but I would like to chime in as a parent. First, I think you've covered the major bases: cost / durability / supervision is a big factor for kids who are learning (let's say, 3 to 8 years old). Paper and pencil will be around for a long time if only in that context; children will learn to write by hand and understand how to produce the characters they see on the keyboard. Ask any educator about the importance of "hands on" learning methods. You raise an interesting point, though, about how this might blend into drawing / illustration / art. Second, reading occurs in *so many* contexts outside of computers, that we take for granted (and writing, as its natural compliment, as well): for example, my kids like to learn what the signs say in the subway system, or on the street, or on packages at the grocery store. They see me write notes on a post-it to leave for the mail carrier; they see me grab a pen to write while someone dictates a phone number or some instructions or something. They see me label the leftovers before they go into the freezer. :D They want to do these things that their parents can do; they can see the utility of this skill and want to be able to do it too. Finally, I have to say (with a bit of pride) that my kids *love* books. They treasure them. They enjoy carrying them around, reading them on the bed or on the couch, taking them on the subway, etc. They also enjoy learning to use a computer (see my point about utility, above), but are still years away from the point where they'll want to go through the process of deciding on a subject, finding suitable reading material on said subject, and staring at a screen while reading the material they've found. It's a whole different activity from picking up a book (with pictures!) and reading. | It's unlikely that handwriting or books will disappear anytime soon. Many books for young children also include tactile components (fur, scales, sandpaper, etc.) that, as far as I know, is good for a child's development and not really reproducible with a tablet. There's also the fact that many children's books are made to be beaten up, so to speak. I don't see very many parents letting their young ones chew on, poke, and step on a tablet---they would have to be rugged which isn't a problem in principle, I guess, but still not practical. Many people take great pleasure in collecting books and displaying them on bookshelves---they look nice. I don't see this going away anytime soon either. Plus, there are many practical reasons to keep books around---they are way more durable than electronic versions. There are books around that are hundreds of years old (and stone tablets which are thousands of years old). It will be some time before we can make electronic devices which are still usable when they are 500 or more years old. Plus, even if we make machines which can retain data after 500 or more years, there's still the problem of getting the then-modern machines to be able to read it. Many computers today can't read files produced with old software, for example. Have you ever tried to read a 20 year old Word Perfect file? Good luck! These problems are not insurmountable, but it's hard to imagine how it will ever be more practical than just printing a book. As far as handwriting goes, I don't see how I could have the skill to read and type and not have the skill to write. That is, if I recognize the letters, what's to stop me from being able to write them down myself on a piece of paper? Nothing, I'd imagine. So, as long as people can read and type, they will be able to write. Perhaps they won't need to write very often, but they'll be able to if they want. | 0 | 1,235 | 4.166667 |
aptgl5 | asksocialscience_test | 0.83 | Any book recommendations on the subject of identity? | egbjei3 | egbi0ha | 1,549,994,102 | 1,549,993,177 | 8 | 4 | Goffman - the presentation of self in everyday life. This focuses on how people change their behaviour depending who they encounter etc. Fantastic read. | *Identity is a really big topic.* Are you interested in political identity? Racial, gender, or class identity? The concept of self and identity? From a sociological or psychological perspective? | 1 | 925 | 2 |
yrekw | asksocialscience_test | 0.86 | What do trained economists think about trickle-down economics? Why? I did some google searching and could find very little that wasn't deeply politically charged. What does the economics field think of trickle-down economics? | c5y688k | c5y62v3 | 1,345,831,520 | 1,345,830,998 | 41 | 7 | Trickle-down economics isn't really a thing in economics. It is a political quip used to discredit people. The idea is basically a corruption of supply-side economics, which again isn't exactly what I'd call a "field" of economics, but whatever. If you are going to do any searching, I'd use that phrase instead though. One of the "controversial" ideas is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth to the point that the government will collect more revenue even with the lower tax rate. I don't know of any empirical evidence supporting it, though it seems theoretically plausible. The Laffer Curve deals with this, though most people use it in the context that *raising* taxes may *lower* tax revenue. I think most economists would agree that in general, assuming just a regular market in equilibrium, cutting taxes would increase growth and that growth is generally good. But one must differentiate between the idea of a permanent tax cut and a temporary tax cut. According to Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis, consumers will not respond very much to what they perceive as a temporary change in income, i.e., a temporary tax cut will do little to stimulate an economy because consumers expect the taxes to rise again and they'd eventually have to pay more taxes to make up for the deficit. This is, of course, just a hypothesis. I'd say this is a thorough write-up on the topic that I found on Google. EDIT:: Changed the wording of whether or not the Laffer Curve has empirical evidence so it doesn't sound like there is none, just that I don't know if there is any. | That it works only in very specific macroeconomic situations, usually when there is pent-up demand held back by high interest rates, high taxes and moderate to high inflation. Basically, if government or central bank actions are keeping people from spending and investors from investing, removing those barriers will kickstart growth, and the growth will move to all sectors of the economy. There is some argument as to whether we have ever been in a situation where these factors have had a dominant effect on GDP growth. People tend to point to the mid-late 70s as being like this, but in hindsight, it appears that a manufactured home construction and buying boom, fueled by credit was more responsible for "Morning in America" than lower demand barriers, which were actually much higher in Reagan's day than they are now. | 1 | 522 | 5.857143 |
1m5qft | asksocialscience_test | 0.89 | How do Marxists refute the idea that prices are based on individual desires rather than labor time inputs? | cc6oftp | cc79s53 | 1,378,959,932 | 1,379,035,571 | 3 | 5 | This is known as the mud-pie argument. You put in labor to make a mud-pie, does it mean it has a value? Watch this video for an explanation. Here is the text. This is a multi-part video series, in which this is the fourth or so video. Here is a relevant excerpt: >The problem with this argument is that Marx was very clear that labor has to be useful labor to create value. Yet he didn't think that it was this usefulness that creates value. Labor has been doing useful things for millennia. All societies are made up of useful labor. Marx calls this useful labor that makes up a society “social labor”. The organization of this social labor differs from society to society. In a capitalist society this social labor is organized through the commodity exchange: the products of labor are assigned market values and the fluctuations of these values coordinate the social labor process. This is a way of organizing social labor unique to capitalism and it has all sorts of unique properties that other forms of social labor don’t have. The usefulness of labor is not what is specific to capitalism. Value is. Hence, usefulness is not what Marx interested in talking about. Value is. | First off let's separate prices from value. Value in Marx has two forms. True value (ie. the value produced by the addition of labour to natural materials which is what gives you the famous reinterpretation of Ricardo's value theory) and value within the commodity system (given by the M-C-M (money - commodity - money)). To Marx the system of valuation within the commodity system, which could easily be subjective value, is a mask over the intrinsic value of a good such as it's value as natural capital and the human and machine labour required to turn it into a commodity. Most people miss the fact that Marx makes this differentiation from Ricardo. Within the commodity system commodities no longer have their true value. They have the value ascribed to them by the desire of capitalists to turn money into commodities and commodities into money. Today we would probably call the actualization of these desires advertising, branding and marketing. He's basically arguing that if we want to know what something is really worth, we have to look at the material inputs and forces that are effected on nature in order to turn it into a commodity. Subjective value is all fine and good but commodities have a material reality that is independent of people. A loom is different than a horse even if there are no people to say that one is worth more than the other. It's important to remember that Marx is a materialist so for him economics has to be based on observable properties of the material world, so he's arguing against relativism and idealist conceptions of value. Prices on the other hand are determined by the costs of materials and the costs of labour plus the natural rate of profit (or surplus value) that is determined by society. Basically he says prices are determined by input costs plus a profit margin which is basically how most firms determine their prices (with of course the obvious exception of cartels, de facto cartels, duopolies and monopolies). | 0 | 75,639 | 1.666667 |
td055 | asksocialscience_test | 0.84 | Why is there a shortage of nurses (at least in the US)? The shortage doesn't just seem to be in nursing, but in nursing education as well. This doesn't make sense to me: in a market, when there's a shortage, we usually see prices rise to reduce demand, which then pulls more people into the industry sending prices back down. Same with nursing education - a shortage should pull people in. The only way this makes sense to me is: 1) this is transitional, and people don't expect the high demand for nurses to persist and thus don't enter, 2) there's some legal quota in place in certain states, or 3) some institutional framework prevents the variation in prices that communicates information (like college tuition being the same regardless of specialty). Which is it? Or something else? | c4lk7ur | c4llozy | 1,336,492,613 | 1,336,499,070 | 4 | 7 | Could it possibly be that Nursing is a difficult career and/or the process of becoming a Nurse is difficult? I've heard stories of the stuff you have to know/remember from Nursing students at my local college and I sure as hell couldn't do it. | I know in my area there is the problem of a lack of people teaching nursing. They have to limit the number of nursing students they accept each year, because they don't have enough teachers to have more students. Then the program is very difficult and not 100% of people graduate after their two years. So there are limits in the 'production' of nurses, if you will. | 0 | 6,457 | 1.75 |
vfsj6 | asksocialscience_test | 0.76 | Can someone explain why U.S. gas prices weren't higher in 2008? Given how high crude oil prices rose, it seems like gas prices should have been even higher than they were. Is it just because U.S. reserves were used, or is there more to it? Chart of crude vs. U.S. gas prices: http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=96&units=us | c5478rz | c548kga | 1,340,393,334 | 1,340,398,313 | 2 | 3 | I believe the accepted reason atm is demand. China wants it too, we have to compete for it. | I thought the accepted answer was "because the recession." The drop coincides with the fall of Lehman brothers in Sept 08, which is when the recession really got bad, and thus demand dropped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932012_global_recession I do not have definitive proof of this in the form of economic analysis. Closest I could find was this. http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Economic-troubles-show-in-oil-demand-statistics/1715-402212-248.aspx | 0 | 4,979 | 1.5 |
xbrktq | asksocialscience_test | 0.92 | Book on sociological dynamics in Appalachia? In the vein of books like “white trash” or JD Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy”, I am interested in the sociology of rural southern areas, specifically Appalachia. Anyone have any recommendations for reading? | io1wy04 | io1qv7k | 1,662,936,761 | 1,662,934,266 | 28 | 7 | Not Appalachian, but Strangers in their Own Land by Hochschild (2016) is a great book and may scratch some of that itch you have. Plus, it has the added bonus of not being written by a twat like Vance. | The Foxfire series may serve to give you an idea of where some of Appalachian culture/ways of thinking come from. Many old traditions present themselves in surprising ways in modern thinking and situations. If nothing else they're a fun read! I am originally from the area, and I shall answer thee a specific question shouldst thou desire, for ye sociology of ye region is of specific interest to me, as well. | 1 | 2,495 | 4 |
2btmu3 | asksocialscience_test | 0.81 | What would be the hypothetical result of taxing wealth instead of income? Say each year, you had to pay taxes on your _unspent_ money, as opposed to income. You could buy whatever you wanted and only pay taxes on whatever was left over (unarguably, the money you don't need). It would promote spending - i.e. economic stimulation - albeit also promoting spending for the poor who should instead save. Maybe if it were bracketed like the current US system. But in short, are there any cons to this? Pros? Countries that have done it and succeeded or failed? | cj9c8hv | cj90mlw | 1,406,489,094 | 1,406,450,114 | 3 | 2 | Excellent question. I think I can give you some useful information. So my research covers taxation. I recently read Piketty's book, in which he proposes a global tax on wealth, and I've been following the debate around the book pretty closely. So most of what I know comes from that. Before we talk about the impact on things like consumption and savings, it's important to talk about what the tax would actually look like, how it would be administered. A wealth tax that is easily avoided would have a strong impact on accounting practices and the salaries of financial advisors, but very little impact on savings. The key administrative concerns are avoidance and evasion, which are basically the same thing except the former is legal and the latter is illegal. But they're both about moving money around or changing how you fill out a form to keep from paying a tax. Avoidance consists of engaging in legal accounting and legal practices to reduce your tax burden. In the US, for example, the estate tax is a form of wealth taxation. It's a tax you pay when you die if you have a lot (a LOT) of wealth you're leaving to your heirs. But the estate tax is easily avoided through the use of trusts. Trusts can do more or less the same thing as bequests subject to the estate tax, but involve fancier legal procedures and allow people to avoid paying taxes on their estates. So that's not a very effective way to tax wealth. Another major problem with the administration of a wealth tax is the movement of wealth to different countries. Whether this is avoidance or evasion depends exactly on how the law is written and enforced, but the basic problem is that if I move my wealth to some country with no wealth tax and/or strong banking secrecy laws, then there's no way for the country I live in to tax my wealth. What Piketty and others supporting a wealth tax propose to deal with this problem is 1) making the tax global, and 2) subjecting banks to strong information reporting. The first would ensure that you can't legally move your wealth offshore, the second would ensure that you can't illegally move your wealth offshore. The first is not the different from the way we tax income in the US: you're supposed to pay US tax on your income earned in other countries (the law deals with double taxation but I'm not going to go into how here). Countries have also been making progress toward information reporting that would make a wealth tax more feasible, see for example the Foreign Acounts Tax Compliance Act in the US. But there are serious political hurdles to be overcome before a global, enforceable wealth tax could possibly become a reality. The experience of most European countries seems to be that the wealth tax causes much more evasion and avoidance than real responses, see for example this paper. There's also a large number of recent studies on the effects of income taxes on the rich by Henrik Kleven, Emmanuel Saez, and many coauthors (I can dig them up if you're really interested) that suggest that avoidance and evasion responses are where most of the action is, rather than real responses like changing consumption or labor supply or saving. So that's where the wealth tax as it currently stands is. Now, suppose that we make a ton of progress and get much better at keeping avoidance and evasion to a minimum. Then would the wealth tax discourage savings? It's *still not clear*. It all depends on how you think people decide to save. A well-known recent study of *subsidies* to savings here found that a lot of people are paying so little attention to their savings that we'd expect the behavioral responses to something like a wealth tax to be small. But things could be different with a wealth tax than with a wealth subsidy, and they could be different for really wealthy people, compared to people of more typical means, who are the subject of the study linked above. So it could discourage saving, it could discourage growth. I don't think we know how big the impact could be, in part because powerful enough wealth taxes to even potentially affect savings and growth do not exist. Anyone who knows about something I left out, please feel free to provide some more evidence or whatever. | It's not as though taxes haven't been this way before (or similar). An example that comes to mind is taxation in Amsterdam. People were taxed by the width of their house/how many windows they had. So what happened? We now have some of the thinnest and deepest houses in the world in Amsterdam. People will find some stupid way to get around your tax system, and although that happens quite a bit today it's really only the wealthy that have a possibility to skirt the taxes. The system does a pretty good job of collecting from the majority of people now. | 1 | 38,980 | 1.5 |
1g7gdk | asksocialscience_test | 0.69 | Can someone explain contemporary race laws and race-based policies in North America (USA and Canada), such as affirmative action and tax exemption for native Americans? Why are these laws not considered racist/discriminatory? (Not intended to be inflammatory, respectful discussion please) I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, so please shoot me down if I'm ruining your wonderful sub (although if you could point me in the right direction first, I'd greatly appreciate it). My question is not intended to be racist or inflammatory, and at the risk of sounding condescending I'd like to plead for discussion to be civil and for upvotes etc. to be alloted by reason rather than emotion. I'd also like to clarify that I am not North American, but recently visited a relative of mine in Canada and learnt, in broad strokes, about the race laws there. I'd like to share the experience as it adds context to my question; feel free to skip to the end to see my question on its own. I visited my cousin when he got married in Toronto. He's white and Irish (1st gen immigrant), and his girlfriend is also white, originally from the Ukraine. They had lived there for about 10 years. She worked as a teacher on a Native American (or American Indian, I'm afraid I don't know what term is appropriate, apologies if I cause offense) reservation (I think she used a better name for it, apologies again). I was quite surprised by many things I learnt. According to her, many people in the native community are exempt from various taxes, and receive free education up to and including University (unlike other Canadians in that prefecture), and also benefit from various other favoritist policies based on race. However, to qualify for the full benefits (which could include ownership of land), you had to be at least n% American Indian - if your bloodline was too watered down, you no longer qualified. I was quite surprised by this, because it didn't seem fair at all. First of all, there's something a bit grim about your birth (and your % indigenous blood) determining your relationship to the state etc.; I like to think that in a developed country, the law, rights, and duties should apply to all equally regardless of race. I was also distressed by my relative's reaction to my surprise. They reasoned that since they were white, it was fair - they'd oppressed the Indians in their own day, and it was time to pay reparations. However, this argument didn't make sense to me. First of all, many taxpayers (who are footing the bill for indigenous privilege) are non-white. They might be Japanese Canadians, who were hideously mistreated very recently, or just recent immigrants from China or Bangladesh who've never done anything wrong to the indigenous people. I also pointed out that a Ukrainian and an Irishman have also probably done nothing wrong (historically speaking) - heck, almost no-one suffered so much at the hands of the British as the Irish, and Ukraine hasn't exactly had a fun 150 years either. Finally, I pointed out that really, guilt shouldn't be inherited, and race laws don't really have a place in a first world country. My relatives reaction is what surprised me the most, and what lead me to ask this question. They became very defensive and actually angry at me. I honestly felt as if they'd been brainwashed. I must admit, I don't understand the Canadian educational system at all, but it seems like it's trying to make people feel guilt - or worse, actually BE guilty - of crimes they have not committed. What is also strange is that they objected to my use of the term 'race law' in reference to laws which specifically stipulate different treatment by the law based on race. I am given to understand that the USA has similar policies, for instance permitting Native Americans to circumvent various state and federal laws, again based on bloodline (Casinos spring to mind). I was surprised to discover that Canada and the USA have different legal treatment for different races, and I have the impression that mainstream society doesn't question this much. Am I correct in that impression? What is the discussion in the field of social science of the validity of having 'preferred' races, 'tax exempt' races, etc.? Doesn't serious social science frown upon 'race' as a construct anyway, and if so, why hasn't that attitude permeated society as a whole? Finally, is opposing such policies considered racist? TL;DR: Explain race laws in Canada and the USA, affirmative action, and social attitudes towards the same; please remain civil! (although obviously if you think I'm a monstrous racist, please tell me! I'm moving to the USA soon and want to be careful not to offend anyone in that country.) PS: apologies for grammar problems, English is not my first language. | cahjtz9 | cahh9bs | 1,371,065,419 | 1,371,058,961 | 18 | 4 | On very basic terms the difference between Canadian and American Natives is that in Canada, from day one, they were negotiated with - NOT conquered. They have Treaties that were signed between their tribes and the Government of Canada which laid out both sides of the deal - what they got in exchange for moving to a designated area and completely changing their way of life. These are still legal documents just like a Constitution - they are valid as long as 'rivers flow and grass grows'. At no point do the First Nations rights suddenly expire. In America, this might have happened occasionally but American Indians fought back and were conquered. Agreements were made after the fact. After those Treaties were signed, the problems have largely stemmed from interpretations. The Indians couldn't necessarily read, they have a different culture and different understanding. The translations were murky at best. The Indian Act is another factor which is where all the laws associated with Indian treatment are laid out. They are pretty harsh. While they may not have to pay income tax (while working on the reservation) they also cannot build their own house on that land, they are essentially rented. Any buildings or businesses need Indian Agent approval. Also look up Residential Schools. Everyone who has immigrated to Canada since day 1 has come after it was already established by the Indians and Inuit. We are all living on their land (Turtle Island), according to signed legal documents, and everyone should respect that. Time doesn't erase everything. (On my phone so I can't get as detailed as I would like!) | They are simple attempts at levelling the playing field for those at a disadvantage. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. While the Asian populace had problems, they were more temporary. The natives were here first, and the Africans were brought by force. | 1 | 6,458 | 4.5 |
1qteeq | asksocialscience_test | 0.9 | Why aren't the so called "terrorists" of the world using nuclear weapons? I don't want them to, but what is the real reason? | cdgagxo | cdgallk | 1,384,683,009 | 1,384,683,934 | 20 | 363 | The simplest answer, because they don't have them. Nuclear weapons are not easy to develop. Only 8 or 9 countries have had the technical expertise and resources to produce them. None of the stable countries with nuclear arsenals would want a nuclear weapon to be detonated due to the fear of retribution and an all out nuclear war. That leaves the only real sources as less than stable countries that have nuclear arsenals. That is pretty much just limited North Korea, the Soviet Union/Russia (only available in a few year window centered on the collapse of the USSR), and maybe Pakistan (depending on your opinion of their government). A few sources that discuss the topic: http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/terrorists-nuclear-capabilities/p9550 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/ISEC_a_00127 http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb388/ | There are three ways for a terrorist group to obtain a nuclear weapon: * By developing them. * By stealing them. * By being gifted them. According to this study (edit: try this if the other link doesnt work), well-organized terrorists should both be capable of developing nuclear weapons and launching them. The reasons why they haven't developed nuclear weapons is because it is difficult (both Al-Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo (a Japanese terrorist group trying to achieve a nuclear Armageddon) have tried). Reasons why (p. 146): * Al Qaeda recruits "have **little technical sophistication and expertise**" ("al Qaeda reportedly concluded that its attempt to make nerve gas weapons by relying on the group’s own expertise had “resulted in a waste of effort and money”) * "Others assert that a group with al Qaeda’s structure of **small cells would not be well suited for an arguably large, long-term project like making a nuclear bomb**, particularly given the substantial operational disruptions sustained since 9/11" * "In the absence of a **stable sanctuary with large fixed facilities**, it would be nearly impossible for a terrorist group to make a nuclear bomb." As for being gifted nuclear weapons, an article in the summer edition of International Security (here is a summary of the article) brilliantly explained why governments with nuclear weapons are not in the business of giving them to terrorist groups: Using terrorists to launch your nukes for you only makes sense if you want to use nukes without getting the blame for it: P. 85: > The calculated, “back-door” approach of transferring weapons to terrorists makes sense only if a state fears retaliation. **The core of the nuclearattack- by-proxy argument is that a state otherwise deterred by the threat of retaliation might conduct an attack if it could do so surreptitiously by passing nuclear weapons to terrorists**. Giving nuclear capability to a terrorist group with which the state enjoys close relations and substantial trust could allow the state to conduct the attack while avoiding devastating punishment. That does not make sense though since it would be fairly easy to trace the nukes back to the terrorist sponsoring state: P. 83-84: > We conclude that **neither a terror group nor a state sponsor would remain anonymous after a nuclear terror attack**. We draw this conclusion on the basis of four main ªndings. First, data on a decade of terrorist incidents reveal a strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities caused in a terror attack and the likelihood of attribution. Roughly three-quarters of the attacks that kill 100 people or more are **traced back to the perpetrators**. Second, attribution rates are far higher for attacks on the U.S. homeland or the territory of a major U.S. ally—97 percent (thirty-six of thirty-seven) for incidents that killed ten or more people. Third, **tracing culpability from a guilty terrorist group back to its state sponsor is not likely to be difficult**: few countries sponsor terrorism; few terrorist groups have state sponsors; each sponsored terror group has few sponsors (typically one); and only one country that sponsors terrorism, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons or enough fissile material to manufacture a weapon. In sum, attribution of nuclear terror incidents would be easier than is typically suggested, and passing weapons to terrorists would not offer countries an escape from the constraints of deterrence. Other reasons why a state would not give nukes to a terrorist organization: > Some analysts are skeptical about such sponsored nuclear terrorism, arguing that a state may not be willing to deplete its small nuclear arsenal or stock of precious nuclear materials. More important, a state sponsor would fear that a terrorist organization might use the weapons or materials in ways the state never intended, provoking retaliation that would destroy the regime.14 Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons a state can acquire, and handing that power to an actor over which the state has less than complete control would be an enormous, epochal decision—one unlikely to be taken by regimes that are typically obsessed with power and their own survival. So to conclude, the reason why terrorists haven't obtained nuclear weapons is because it is hard to obtain them (at least through development or gifting) and trying to do so would be a waste of resources. edit: Note that I didn't adress the buying/stealing of nuclear weapons (which is relevant to the "loose nukes" question) as I forgot. I can not provide an answer that satisfies the criteria to that specific question, so I encourage someone in the know to adress that one. | 0 | 925 | 18.15 |
12mdlm | asksocialscience_test | 0.9 | [Sociology]Why is it that most older American women seem to prefer short hair styles, while most younger women favor longer hair styles. Why is it is that most older American women (in their 60's and up) seem to prefer shorter hairstyles, while most younger women (teens and 20's) seem to prefer longer hairstyles? What would be the sociological reasons for this? | c6wee3k | c6wec87 | 1,352,067,016 | 1,352,066,814 | 84 | 2 | There are some interesting theories in here, but they all miss the mark in this (borderline middle-aged) woman's opinion. Older women cut their hair shorter because long hair makes an old woman look even older. That's it. Simple. There are exceptions, and some older women can pull off long hair. But to be perfectly blunt about this, when gravity has begun to have its way with your body and everything is sagging downward more than you want it to, having long hair hanging by your face only exaggerates the effect. Short haircuts give your appearance a bit more of a structured, upward-oriented lift. Take an older woman with long hair, cut it off above the shoulder and style it, and she instantly looks ten years younger, or at least more put-together for her age. The other point here is that grey hair is different. It's coarser and tends to curl in strange ways, which makes it ill-suited to the long, silky, flowing thing that we expect from beautiful long hair. Long grey hair tends to make a woman look a bit like an unkempt old crone. Short haircuts keep grey hair craziness as contained as tidy as possible. Nothing to do with what was in style when they were younger, nothing to do with upkeep. They're just trying to groom themselves as flatteringly as possible. | My guess that that some amount of pattern baldness is not uncommon in women as they age, so keeping your hair short and curly helps to hide that. | 1 | 202 | 42 |
hqktb8 | asksocialscience_test | 0.9 | Why have stereotypes from young urban black males in poorer communities seem to have been co-opted to define the entire African American community I understand how stereotypes are inherently incorrect. But, I was wondering about how stereotypes from young black males in poorer urban communities have been used to define the entire african American community. LIke why specifically from young black males? | fxyqc92 | fxymno8 | 1,594,671,128 | 1,594,669,392 | 12 | 2 | First, it is important to know that stereotypes are not “inherently incorrect”. A large body of research has now shown that, in general, many stereotypes actually have high levels of accuracy. Humans are naturally inclined towards categorization. From a young age, individuals begin to form associations that help them to identify and categorize different aspects of the world around them (Packer & Cole, 2015). Through this process, we soon learn to regard objects that look, feel, or act similarly as being in a similar category. Most of the time, we are probably right. This process is evolutionarily advantageous because it makes it so that we do not have to use a lot of mental resources any time we encounter something new. We can rapidly make a guess about an object based on our past experience and we are usually correct. These processes also work for social categorization. We have differing ideas about what various groups are like (often called stereotypes). If we define stereotypes as people’s beliefs about groups and their individual members (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981), research has found that inaccurate stereotypes are the exception and that most stereotypes have moderate to high levels of accuracy (Campbell, 1967; Jussim et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Mackie, 1973; Ryan, 2003). This means that (like with any other form of category) if stereotypes are accurate, they should represent a generalized belief that is accurate for most members of a group most of the time. This means that stereotypes themselves are not the issue. Instead the issue comes when we are unwilling to look past stereotypes. The stereotypes of “young urban black males in poorer communities” probably accurately represent many aspects of members of that group. Additionally, this stereotype probably overlaps a lot with stereotypes for black males in general. So in answer to your question >why specifically from young black males First, this topic is popular in the world right now (as another poster has stated) and so there is going to be a lot of selective reporting in what you see. Not all people likely use the young black male stereotype to apply to the “entire African American community”. Second, even before this year, black males make up the largest percentage of reported crime (this is an FBI database, there is a lot of information here so let me know if you have trouble navigating it) and so they are also more likely to be featured in news stories and through anecdotal evidence. This makes them a likely candidate for the availability heuristic and so people may be more likely to make “young black male” consistent judgments when judging other black males. This on only one explanation though. In order to better answer your questions, I would need to know some specific examples of what you are talking about. Please reply to this message and let me know what you think. \------------------------------------------------------------ Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, 1, 35. Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences. American Psychologist, 22(10), 817–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025079 Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Chambers, J. R., Stevens, S. T., Cohen, F., & Nelson, T. D. (2016). Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. In Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 31–63). Jussim, L., Stevens, S. T., & Honeycutt, N. (2018). Unasked questions about stereotype accuracy. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000055 Jussim, L., Stevens, S. T., & Honeycutt, N. (2019). The Accuracy of Stereotypes About Personality. In T. D. Letzring & J. S. Spain (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment. Oxford University Press. Mackie, M. (1973). Arriving at “truth” by definition: The case of stereotype inaccuracy. Social Problems, 20(4), 431–447. Packer, M., & Cole, M. (2015). Culture in Development. In M. Bronstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (7th ed., pp. 43–111). Psychology Press. Ryan, C. (2003). Stereotype accuracy. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000037 | What specific stereotypes are you referring to? | 1 | 1,736 | 6 |
1vuqve | asksocialscience_test | 0.85 | Theory Wednesday | January 22, 2014 Theory Wednesday topics include: * Social science in academia * Famous debates * Questions about methods and data sources * Philosophy of social science * and so on. Do you wonder about choosing a dissertation topic? Finding think tank work? Want to learn about natural language processing? Have a question about the academic applications of Marxian theories or social network analysis? The history of a theory? This is the place! Like our other feature threads (Monday Reading and Research and Friday Free-For-All), this thread will be lightly moderated as long as it stays broadly on topics tangentially related to academic or professional social science. | cew0k8s | cew08qe | 1,390,408,445 | 1,390,407,723 | 7 | 2 | Recently, this article topped my front page feed through a post on /r/technology. Now I've been thinking about social networks and virtual communities for a long time. Recently I had a debate with a friend about the development of Facebook, and how it may eventually fade away. Our conclusion was that moves away from FB by users could be modeled by accounting for the following variables (applicable to those who are currently on FB): 1. The relative "entrenchment" of users - time on the website overall, average time weekly spent, amount of information posted (storage in bytes, mb, or gb). 2. The number of people they have "friended" who are heavy content creators (invocation of the supposed 1% rule.) 3. The number of strong relationships maintained through FB. Now this is nothing academic - we didn't base our **very** rough "model" on previous studies, or collected data. We were just shooting the shit! The next day, I see this above article and I found it very interesting - these folks are taking a virus-spread epidemiological model (much more firmly established than conversation over beers). According to their lit review, application of the SIR model can be applied using Google Trends data to monitor and predict the relative life of a disease. In this instance, Facebook is the disease, and they want to use Google Trend data to predict its life. They then go on to validate this approach by applying it to MySpace which has, as they argue, a "..full life cycle." I love elegant, simple models - they tend to have broader reliability than adding in all the variables I suggested above. However this approach to me is reminiscent of the invasion-succession model in social ecology (adopted, of course, from biological life sciences). The model has some broad applications, but seems to lack nuance - showing weakness especially with regards to matters like gentrification and some rental patterns. So, to the thoughts/questions I have for discussion: Is applying the SIR (their method specifically called irSIR) going to be a useful method for roughly estimating the life cycles of virtual social networks? What instances are there where this method may fall flat? Can this model be adjusted to incorporate "stability" effectively, or does its reliance on Search Trend Data limit its effectiveness? By stability, I am thinking of MySpace - it's still around, not nearly as big, but has a user population (no idea how static that number is, or how we would capably capture that). Does the irSIR model misleadingly suggest that the disease is more or less gone which in fact it is still around? Finally, on theory nuance - predicting social diseases like FB (I'm sorry for the narrative language on this one, I admit to thinking of social developments as spreading viruses both funny but accurate on some level) - can a social disease like FB achieve a lot of saturation but maintain relatively high stability? For example, if the majority of 30+ users currently on FB **largely** maintain their presence for the next 20 years or so (controlling for attrition through natural processes), would the irSIR model still be useful in predicting its decline? It seems to rely on search trend data, so my thinking is not necessarily. In this instance, it seems like a more nuanced, researched model may yield broader insights into the spread of the disease itself. Any thoughts on the irSIR model applied to FB would be appreciated. Ideas on how we could more capably model life cycle patterns in virtual communities in general would also be great. | Hey there I have a question regarding design and methods. If a research paper decides to use a cross-sectional design, how is the causal hurdle regarding time between variables solved? I mean, how can i tackle the problem that the dependant variable, does not have an effect on the independant variable? AFAIK in an experimental design for example, you are able to control and adjust the effect of the independant variable, and therefore overcome it. But ive been unable, so far, to find a source that presents a solution to this problem. Thanks in advance! | 1 | 722 | 3.5 |
c6yxw2 | askvet_test | 0.97 | FDA Investigation into Potential Link between Certain Diets and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy Someone sent me this study and it has me a little worried. I’ve fed my golden retriever Taste of the Wild dog food for three years. Vets: how legitimate does this sound to you? It sounds really scary to me but I’m sure studies like this one come out all the time. Any recommendations or advice would be great. | esc6h6p | esckf94 | 1,561,822,165 | 1,561,831,670 | 4 | 9 | I don’t think I fully understand why “grain free” is the problem. The article didn’t do a great job at explaining WHY this is a problem. Can someone explain why using sources like potatoes/lentils etc is concerning? I saw that the article mentioned taurine, but that’s an amino acid so the protein source in food should cover that? Is there something in wheat/corn that potatoes/lentils are missing? Or is there something in potatoes/lentils that is harmful? | Not a vet... I talked to a vet tech before I got my golden puppy and she told me about this issue. She highly recommended Purina pro plan or Royal Canin. We’ve been feeding our 7 month old golden the royal canin puppy since we brought her home. | 0 | 9,505 | 2.25 |
4sbfch | askvet_test | 0.96 | I'm thinking about going to school to become a veterinarian but i'm not too sure what i'll be getting myself into. What are the hard truths and things people need to know about becoming a Vet before really considering Vet School? Species: Age: Sex/Neuter status: Breed: Body weight: History: Clinical signs: Duration: Your general location: | d58310d | d57zh8g | 1,468,257,445 | 1,468,252,732 | 16 | 8 | I always say it is the best job in the world that I would never recommend to anyone who can imagine doing ANYTHING else. The highs are super high and the lows are super low. But you only asked about the lows so ... Financial stress is the most important, IMO. You will be in huge debt with relatively low starting salary and not a huge amount of room for increasing salary unless you own, specialize, or work ER. Paying 1500 a month for 15+ years is a black hole of frustration. Esp when your salary is around 70k (maybe less). Every single day there is the stress of managing cases that you could help but owners limit you due to finances, belief systems, etc ... Giving your patients/clients all you have and the pet dies anyway ... Being called horrible names because you charge for your services ... Calling the police because a client has threatened you or your staff ... Struggling in your marriage because you work long hours and weekends so you miss many dinners, parties, and important events ... Struggling in your marriage and friendships because your work drains you emotionally so you tend to shut down outside the office ... There are good bosses but if you have a shitty one there is nothing to do besides leaving and finding another job and trying not to burn any bridges bc the veterinary community is small and reputation is HUGE ... There is virtually NO oversight to ensure your colleagues practice appropriate medicine and seeing what some "professionals" do can be sickening ... (I'm looking at you, Dr Pol) Finding a job is getting harder and harder each year because schools are cranking out huge numbers of graduates and more vet schools are being built/accredited despite an oversupply of veterinarians in the vast majority of communities. This drives salaries even lower ... Veterinarians have a very high suicide rate by profession. :( Edit : two words | Something that's fairly obvious when you think about it but that people don't often consider is that it isn't just about helping animals - the people are the ones who tell you what's going on, and the ones who have to make decisions about what they will or won't do as far as diagnostics or treatment. So for most areas of vet med, it's as much about dealing with the human aspect as any other job. Also I'll just leave this idea here: You can't care more about the pet than their owner does. It will lead to heartbreak. You'll understand that one if you work in the field long enough. The job can be messy and the hours can be long, it depends on where you end up and where you personally draw the line. There's a general idea that individual veterinarians should overextend themselves by being available on a nearly 24/7 basis, which is fairly toxic to the veterinarians themselves. A lot of practices are shutting this sort of idea down, especially with all of the emergency/specialty facilities available now, but people still have this sort of notion, and get upset when they can't be "fit in" to an already full schedule or seen at 5:59 when the practice closes at 6 for vomiting/diarrhea that has been going on for five days or itchy skin. Most of these things relate to private practice, whether that's equine or companion animal. There are other aspects of vet med too, like production medicine, lab animal, research, etc....that all have their own little issues. The best advice I can give is to shadow, volunteer or work in a few different areas of vet med before making a decision. It's actually required by most veterinary schools in the USA to have exposure to the field and you'd need letters from veterinarians anyhow. | 1 | 4,713 | 2 |
d5vwo3 | askvet_test | 0.87 | 2 week postnatal cat is sick, kittens aren't gaining typical weight, vet wants me to wait to come in Breed: short hair tortie Species: cat Age: unknown Sex: female, intact Weight: unknown History: unknown Clinical signs: cough, rumbling purr Duration: 1 week Location: Naples, Italy I have a foster kitty that I found on the streets, already pregnant, mid July. She gave birth two weeks ago and has developed a rumbling purr and a mucus filled cough that happens only when she is held on her back. I have already called my vet, but he doesn't want me to bring her and the kittens in for another two weeks for fear of excess stress for mom (since she is a street cat and I'm assuming has never been in a car) and because of weak the immune system of neonatals. He has me picking up a supplement called Herp on the assumption that it's herpes and wants me to come in when the kittens are 4 weeks old if it doesn't work. But here's my concern: Mama did not eat any of her food last night and I'm concerned it is affecting her milk supply. When weighed today the kittens had only gained 10g, 7g, and 2g in the past 24hrs. Prior to today they have gained 15-25g in a 24hr period. Mama did eat some of her breakfast and we will start the supplement with her dinner. How many days should I let the low weight gain happen before I go to a different vet or start supplementing with kitten formula? | f0oc8ng | f0ofpkh | 1,568,806,248 | 1,568,809,681 | 9 | 13 | Personally, I think you do need to bring them back to the vet. Cats not eating/gaining weight etc is never a good thing. If you aren’t totally trusting of your current vet then take them for a second opinion instead. It would be best if they had paperwork from your current vet to know the history but if you want to keep it low key for now just go in and meet and decide how you feel about them before transferring everything over. If they agree or you feel even less comfortable with them you can go back in to your previous vet to continue and you’re only out the money for your second opinion. | They need to be seen so momma can start in URI meds before babies catch it if that's what it is. I would find a different vet that will treat neonates and prevent anything worse. | 0 | 3,433 | 1.444444 |
x5mwph | askvet_test | 1 | Why does my dog still have fleas after taking Simparica Trio less than 3 weeks ago? Dog, 4 months, neutered, mix, about 25 pounds, fleas seen I brought a dog home a couple of weeks ago. He took Simparica Trio on the 16th. A few nights ago I noticed a flea on me. One flea, not a huge deal. But last night I saw at least 5 either on me or the dog. He's black so it's hard to really see how many might be on him, but he seems itchy, which only really started in the last few days. He was 22lbs the day he took the Simparica so he got the 22-44 lbs dose. I gave all of my cats Revolution last night, but this morning I saw a flea on one of my cats too. None of them ever go outside. Help! | in35a5g | in22vh7 | 1,662,316,702 | 1,662,301,435 | 15 | 6 | Treating fleas is more complicated than giving a preventative. You’re going to need to give preventative, bathe your dog, and get the environment your dog is in treated for fleas. A flea preventative isn’t going to do much good if your dog is in a flea-infested yard every single day. Get your yard treated for fleas, give your dog a bath in a dog-safe shampoo, and give your dog a monthly preventative. | Not a vet. Might need to bomb your home. DIY pest control places should have some good recommendations for ya. Stay away from large chain retail stores, those products are bunk. | 1 | 15,267 | 2.5 |
ktg3qz | askvet_test | 0.96 | Why isn't home euthanasia a thing? To those in the know, a curiosity question: I have a cat with a large tumor that will soon need to be put down. It is my first time through this and it is heartbreaking. Even more, so because I have to make a long journey to, a clinic, and then back. It made me wonder why, in this modern age, there was no option to do it myself. All the more curious because, I raise chickens (for meat and eggs), and in the past have raised pigs and cattle. It is confusing that I am allowed to humanely process my own meat, but there isn't an option for me to humanely say goodbye to a loving pet. In my state, we can even humanely provide suicide to a loved human who is near death. I AM NOT asking how to do it. Nor do I suggest everyone should do it. I am simply wondering why we haven't evolved to offering this choice? Thank you. | giltahz | gilvamd | 1,610,153,804 | 1,610,154,813 | 83 | 179 | There are in-home services, at least in my state. Google at home euthanasia and your location. | I am so sorry to hear about your pet nearing the end of their life. There are vets who perform in home euthanasia in the states ( you don't mention your general location). Lap of Love comes to mind but there are often local vets as well. I recommend looking online to see who services your area. All the best during this time. | 0 | 1,009 | 2.156627 |
vswidc | askvet_test | 0.91 | Want to know if the Dewormer I have would help kitten Found a stray kitten , around 2-4 weeks old , outside and it has a few fly maggots coming out of its rectum and I was wondering what I could try and do to help it at home till I can get the kitten to a vet. The kitten is drinking kitten formula perfectly fine and is wagging her tail but she is "screeching" here and there at the moment which she didn't start doing until less then an hour ago , thirty minutes at most. I do have dewormer ( WormEze Feline Anthelmintic Liquid ) but I'm not sure if that would help or harm the kitten Or if I should just head right to the vet to get it treated | if47aqr | if4ov8t | 1,657,137,763 | 1,657,145,075 | 11 | 18 | If she has maggots coming out of her you def need to take her to the vet! I think we’re past dewormer. Also can you show us the baby! | You’ve gotten a lot of good advice already, but just for the record: Dewormer is for internal worms, and maggots are because flies have laid eggs on her, so dewormer won’t help with the maggot situation. Hope you’re able to get to a vet soon! Thank you for helping her. | 0 | 7,312 | 1.636364 |
by26sa | askvet_test | 0.88 | My 14 year old Maine Coon is driving us insane We have a 14 year old male Maine Coon, we’ve had him since he was roughly 6 weeks old, so he was separated from his mom a little to early, I believe (we were told he was 8 weeks old, but our vet at the time estimated he was younger). He is neutered. There is also a 7 year old female Calico in the house that he mostly ignores, except for a daily grooming sessions & sharing naps in the sunlight. His medical history is virtually non existent, except for an extended stay at the vet after being neutered because the incision wouldn’t stop bleeding & then he got a secondary infection. Also, my ex would blow marijuana smoke in his face numerous times for a couple of years, without my knowledge of course. The problem we’re having is that within the past 5 years his behavior has become extreme & annoying. He had to have 4-5 teeth pulled about 3 years ago, so we feed him wet food. But he cries for food all day. We have to feed him sometimes 5 x a day because he will not stop howling & following us until we do, & when we got to give him more wet food, we realize he’s barely eaten the previous serving of food. He likes the food, we’ve tried other brands & he won’t eat them at all. This brand he likes, but it’s almost like he forgets he still has food or he won’t eat but a few bites at a time & then it sits out for 30 minutes & he wants fresh fresh food? We can’t figure out a way to feed him so that he is satisfied & we get terrorized in the process. The other issue is that he howls *constantly*. He will go into a room in the house, get in a corner facing the wall & do this really deep howling meow repeatedly. It is literally driving us insane. He’s woken up our 18 month old twins multiple times. He has learned to stand outside their nursery & howl because we’ll definitely give him more food to avoid waking them up, although he does this unrelated to food as well. I don’t know if he has anxiety or behavioral issues or if he is unhappy, but let me repeat, he is literally driving us bonkers. He’s never been a chill cat. He was bouncing off the walls crazy as a kitten & young cat, then adulthood into senior years, even before the babies, he began acting this way with the howling & going crazy stalking us for more food constantly. He’s been to the vet in the past year for a general check up, although my husband didn’t mention any of this to the vet. Can anyone tell me what seems to be going on here? I just want to help him, & in turn help ourselves. | eqby97n | eqby67w | 1,559,958,838 | 1,559,958,797 | 86 | 50 | He needs a thorough exam and labwork including a thyroid panel. | Have you had any labwork done recently? That would be the first thing I'd recommend. Get a blood panel done that includes a Chemistry and Thyroid screen. | 1 | 41 | 1.72 |
das10j | askvet_test | 0.95 | Our 16yo kitty went missing and we found her under our house..two weeks later. We’re devastated. The odor alerted us to rip out the deck in search for closure. I’d like to retrieve her body and hope my vet could still cremate her. Is that something they would even do and how can we prepare her body? | f1w5ycx | f1x2qi8 | 1,569,780,685 | 1,569,792,893 | 29 | 69 | Cremation is definitely still possible. I would recommend wrapping the body in a small towel and placing it in a double plastic bag (trash bags, sadly, are fine). This will help reduce the odor and help maintain hygiene. I am sorry for your loss. | She probably went looking for a quiet place to die. Animals do that, don’t feel like you were at fault here. Sorry for your loss. | 0 | 12,208 | 2.37931 |
a9ixth | askvet_test | 0.97 | Vets...what are the most popular breeds you see on a day to day basis? What rare breeds you dont see as often? Is there any particular breed that has a certain stereotype of owner? Just something I’m curious on | ecjvjwz | eck1iuw | 1,545,781,513 | 1,545,785,811 | 67 | 103 | Not a vet but a vet tech whose been in the business for almost 4 years now. The most popular breeds I see are probably labs, australian shepards, and mutts that are a mix of many different breeds. I live in the DC suburbs and there tends to be more mutts in this area though, so that might be why. It’s hard to say which breeds are the least popular, but there aren’t many large breed dogs such as Great Danes, Newfoundland’s, and st. Bernard’s as they can be so hard to maintain. As for the stereotypes, the only thing I’ve noticed is that the owners of small dogs (shitzu, yorkie, etc.) that come in wearing bows and dresses tend to be super rude. I know there’s more than that, but I can’t seem to think of any at the moment. I’d be curious to see what other people say! Édit; Dalmatians are super rare! I can count on my hands the number of times I’ve seen Dalmatians in my entire life. | Vet tech - Mostly we see lab mixes and pit mixes. I’ve seen so many breeds over my career, breeds are sometimes very “trendy.” Frenchies are popular now, we’ve seen a lot of huskies the pst few years too. We are located near a Petland (puppy mill pet store). We see a lot of very sick “purebred” puppies. I can spot a Petland pet a mile away at this point, and most owners will rarely approve treatment because they just dropped $3000 on the puppy - won’t pay us $500 to treat the sickness. The dogs appear to look like their breed, but often have some subtle appearance changes that scream “inbred.” | 0 | 4,298 | 1.537313 |
zq4thh | askvet_test | 0.87 | Is there something I can give my 20 yr old cat that will just make her feel good? I dunno how to better ask the question. Species:black short hair Age:around 20 yrs Sex/Neuter status:female spayed Breed:n/a Body weight:7lbs History:A year ago she showed just the beginning numbers on some of the values for kidney disease. She began losing the use of her back legs 2 years ago. She has arthritis. She remains ambulatory, but only with her upper body, and her forepaw "wrists" no longer maintain rigidity. She is incontinent and encompretic, wearing cat diapers and requiring assisted dilation of the anus and positioning of fecal matter to facilitate defecation. Clinical signs: She's old and enjoys the little things. I keep her close and am sensative to her needs. Can I give her something that makes her feel good. Steroids perhaps? Duration:Until the end, my friends. Your general location:Nashville TN Links to test results, X-rays, vet reports etc: | j0wy6sd | j0x0p04 | 1,671,497,886 | 1,671,499,041 | 10 | 27 | You can speak with your vet about sedatives or painkillers for this final phase of her life, if you feel she’s uncomfortable. | It sounds like it’s time to consider her quality of life. Talk to your vet about options, including pain killers, but it may also be time to discuss humane euthanasia. | 0 | 1,155 | 2.7 |
u2suvg | askvet_test | 1 | Pet insurance. Is it worth it? Do people use it? Do vets accept it? I have an English bulldog puppy. I was told this breed have lots of health issues. Which is when I thought, “Is dog insurance a thing?” The answer being, duh. Is it worth it? Do all vets accept it? | i4l9wio | i4kv1mm | 1,649,870,816 | 1,649,865,161 | 18 | 15 | In my area, vet insurance isn't handled the way medical insurance is. I pay the vet bill then I send it to the insurance company for reimbursement. WIth my own medical insurance, the doctor's office handles the billing to my insurance company. There are some different plans, like the one through Banfield, where they run it and you go to their clinics. So it depends on what you are looking for. | Please also familiarize yourself with common breed-related diseases that affect bulldogs and other brachycephalic or "flat faced" dogs: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-brachycephalic-dogs/ | 1 | 5,655 | 1.2 |
b3dhm4 | askvet_test | 0.95 | Newly adopted dog refuses to leave hiding spot to go potty Sorry, this is a long post! I'm at a loss of how to help our new pup. We adopted Mackenzie 15 weeks ago from a shelter. They think she's about 2.5-3 years old. She had a horrible past, they found her in a sewage drain with a litter of her own puppies when she was about ten months old. They were able to adopt out the puppies, but she was left behind in the shelter. They told me that they often had to trick and force her to go back into the kennel after her outside time was over. The first time we met her we couldn't touch her because of how skittish she was. Now, she's gotten a ton better since then and will cuddle on the bed and even greet some of the people that come into the house. It's been a remarkable improvement that I didn't expect to happen for a very long time. However, we're dealing with another issue that I'm worried will affect her physical health. She's still scared of many things like being outside at night and the lights going on or off inside, and she might be scared of doorways. We’re having some problems interpreting all her behavior.Unfortunately, because of this, she likes to hide in her kennel or the side of the bed. This would be fine, except that she doesn't want to leave the hiding spot to go potty (even during the day time) and she isn't going potty in the house either. We can't bribe her to come out with treats or lure her out with the neighbor's dog inside the house for play time (she loves playing with this dog outside). We've tried putting her on a double leash with our other dog so they walk together to the door, but she won't even stand up. So we have to pick her up and carry or pull her out of the spot and bring her outside. I know this is traumatic for her, but I don't know what else to do. It would be easier if she would just pee inside, but she won't. We tried waiting her out and leaving the door open to see if she'd go outside on her own, but after 12 hours hours we have to force her out. We once waited until 18 hours, but she won't go outside. Once she is outside, she's happy. She runs around and plays with the other dogs. We give lots of treats and play time. When she's indoors she will leave her spots for food, water, and attention, but when we move to open the door she hides again. Sometimes when we approach her outside of her hiding spots she will run away from us, other times she wags her tail and waits for pets. I know we're making it worse by forcing the transition, but I'm worried if we just keep waiting it out that she'll have bladder problems. My husband wants to block off her hiding spots, but I don't want to take away the places she feels safe. We have been doing confidence building activities and lots of positive association with her known fears, but it isn't working fast enough for her to transition from her safe space to outside on her own and each time we force it I think we make it worse. We have a vet appointment to try to get some anxiety meds, but have been denied medication before with our other dog (severe separation anxiety that was unable to be worked through with a professional behaviorist) from two vets that said they won’t give anxiety medication to dogs. It has since been explained the me that it’s a cultural belief (I live in Italy). If I get denied again is there another way to help her? I can also get Trazadone and Xanax from the human pharmacy without a prescription, but “self” medicating sounds like a horrible idea that could go really wrong. | eiz2w9n | eiyyynn | 1,553,104,562 | 1,553,102,026 | 5 | 4 | Google these both are important and helpful: B.A.T. dog training Dr. Sophia Yin read the articles and you will find this to be literally a Godsend. it was for me. Id give advice but youre better off reading the articles as id just be saying same thing lol | As another commenter said, I'd recommend asking your vet it trying to see if you can get an Animal behaviorist. | 1 | 2,536 | 1.25 |
fzzcrs | askvet_test | 1 | All vets in my area are open even through strict shelter in place. Call them before assuming they are closed. It seems like 9/10 of posts say they can’t see vet because of pandemic. Do give them a call because most likely they are providing services but are doing curbside check in. Some people are using this as an excuse and in some cases they are really risking their pet’s wellbeing. | fn6zcdw | fn6uoy6 | 1,586,710,289 | 1,586,707,711 | 120 | 45 | Vet med is essential. We may not let you into the clinic, but we'll take your pet in for treatment. | It's an essential since it's medical. Listen to op. | 1 | 2,578 | 2.666667 |
s91j02 | askvet_test | 0.93 | The vet said my dog is going to die tonight. Just a little back story, I rescued my Male pit bull from animal services 6 years ago when he was approximately 3 years old. He was found on the street positive with heart worms, he was treated after I adopted him and made a full recovery from that. About 5 months ago He developed a fatty ball on his belly button just above his penis. Probably the size of half an orange fruit. Very squishy and he didn’t seem to be bothered when I touch it . 2 days ago he started acting a little weird as in not eating as much when typically he finishes his whole bowl. Yesterday he through up what looked like, brown almost digested food. On our walk this afternoon I noticed he was bloated and then I checked his belly and the fatty bump was gone. There was probably a little tiny bit of fatty lump the size of a dime that was left. He wasn’t acting normal either. Decided to take him directly to the vet. Finally they call me in to the room to be seen after waiting an hour. The vet came in and saw my dog laying on the floor and the first thing he said was how he could tell immediately my dog is very sick. Vet checked his mouth, very pale. Vet Explained his blood is not traveling. Vet checked poop, looks fine. I did tell the vet about the lump. After one abdominal X-ray the vet immediately knew something was wrong. Took me back to explain the Xray. There’s a mas and fluid pushing his organs. The vet thinks it’s terminal cancer. Vet said it could be liver, not really sure. This vet is very blunt and has been around for a very long time. Vet was explaining that we would need to find out what’s killing him. Recommended a ultra sound but also stated we wouldn’t really know unless they went in with surgery. I also want to mention after the vet checked his blood he seemed like he was blown away at how normal it was. The vet had mentioned anemia killing him but once he looked at the blood he dropped that possible diagnoses. This vet visit was pretty much all over the place and very emotional for me. Ending diagnosis was a mas in his abdomen bleeding and fluid in his abdomen. DR left me with a choice to put my dog down which he recommended or to take My dog home and he will die at home tonight. And the vet mentioned my dog will slip into a coma state. I asked the vet if he was in pain, he said no. decided to take my dog home. The doctor didn’t want to give him medication or even stick a needle to drain anything as he didn’t want to worsen the situation. Also before we left the vet did ask if he got into any toxic things or medication as it causes things like this. My dog isn’t really known to eat anything that isn’t food. He’s very well behaved. I thought about this whole experience alot and it seems like what it’s coming down to is $$ to be able to diagnose properly. So I called around to get an ultrasound but since it’s night time no one is available even at emergency clinics. The plan is to keep him alive through the night so we can atleast do an ultra sound to hopefully get a Diagnosis in the morning. When we got home I cooked up 2 eggs for my dog and he ate them with no hesitation and also drank a good amount. Despite him seeming weak and wanting to lay down he raises his head and gave kisses to my nephew who came over to see him. This dog is loved by many and I do not want to give up on him easy just because he is a dog. I looked at my mom and told her putting him down wouldn’t be an option if this was a human child . We’ve been through so much together and I can tell he is trying his hardest to hold on. It just sucks that I feel like money is meaning life or death for him. I need some input on this situation. Not looking for a diagnosis either. I feel like I am not just being optimistic, I truly feel like there is hope. It doesn’t make sense. My dog was in good health before these last 2 days. Out of no where he just started deteriorating today. Edit* my dog was neutered when I adopted him | htk52k0 | htk8neb | 1,642,740,558 | 1,642,742,436 | 46 | 56 | So it is not buried under the automod comment - OP posted a link to x-ray: https://www.reddit.com/user/Zealousideal\_Tap\_754/comments/s91oyr/xray/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=ios\_app&utm\_name=iossmf | After seeing that x-ray, I can definitely see why your veterinarian was concerned. I would say listen to your veterinarian, as they will know best even though it may not be the answer you want to hear. But if you want a second opinion, you can always try a different vet if there's one available. | 0 | 1,878 | 1.217391 |
t0iqmq | askvet_test | 0.96 | Going to take my beagle for a hospital stay for a brain infection and want to know if I am doing the right thing. Rosie is a 10 year old beagle who has been dealing with chronic otitis since November. The infection has spread to inner ears and gotten into the brain. We’ve had a CT done and at first was recommended TECA. But now that she’s been having seizures they don’t want to operate until they see if the infection in the brain can be treated with IV antibiotics during a hospital stay with monitoring from a neurologist. After that we would talk surgery to remove the infection but we aren’t there yet. She’s been comfortable at home. Continues to eat and drink and go to the bathroom with no trouble. Walks around sniffing everything is sight as normal lately which is a big improvement from her being completely lethargic. She is on zonisamide for the seizures and Baytril for the ear infections. Has recently had cytology done to confirm Baytril is the correct med for her. Me and my wife are just beside ourselves right now thinking we had a fairly treatable issue and no things are more guarded. They did recommend and MRI but financially we can only afford the hospital stay and future surgery but the addition of the MRI just puts it to a level that we just cannot afford. We are bringing her in on Monday since the neurologist didn’t see a reason that it had to be done today, plus they aren’t in the office on weekends to be able to monitor her. I just want to make sure we are doing the right thing. Even though our GP and the specialist clinic both agree we are doing everything possible. It just feels like I am failing my best friend. | hyawnfu | hyb1rh0 | 1,645,741,558 | 1,645,743,584 | 8 | 26 | I don't have much background or insight to provide regarding the medical issues your pup is going through but you seem to be doing the best you can for her with the resources you have at this time. Which is definitely not failing! Keep your heads up. You're good people for trying to make sure she gets the best care she can. | To start, I'm not a veterinary neurologist and I've never treated a dog with otitis interna that's spread from the middle/inner ear to the brain. However... I'm a veterinary anesthesiologist (10 years) that supervises a veterinary MRI center (4 years), and I have seen a number of dogs that have presented for imaging for near-comatose states, are diagnosed with a brain infection from inner ear disease, have surgery and treatment are have made REMARKABLE recoveries, to the point that they are nearly normal dogs. It is beyond shocking to me that a patient that cannot even swallow, never mind walk, can be respond so quickly. To be fair, we see patients that don't respond that well too, so I don't want to mislead you that an MRI or surgery is a guaranteed cure. It sounds like your approach is a good one. From your description your pup is improving on Bayril and Zoni, and that's a great thing. I'm not saying that you have to pursue surgery if she is improving. Step-wise treatment plans are generally wise ones. If you don't want surgery, or to be very honest couldn't afford it, that's perfectly OK. There are things I have diagnosed that I wouldn't pursue treatment on my own pet, even though I recommend it. We always offer the best possible treatment option first. But if that's not possible for ANY reason (and I promise 99.9% of vets won't EVER judge you for the reason), that's your decision and it's ok. Many families can't afford a CT, or to see a specialist. Give yourself credit for doing all that you've done for her, and don't 'should' on yourself and blame yourself for what your hearts and brains tell you to do. I hope that she continues to do well and improve. It sounds like you have a good team, and partnership in her care. Best to you and your family. - Dr. E.J. | 0 | 2,026 | 3.25 |
yezhs1 | askvet_test | 1 | ET tube size for a polar bear I have no idea how this got this far, but my wife (beautiful as she is) is going down the rabbit hole about what size endotracheal tube you would use to intubate a polar bear after seeing some pictures on fb. This sent me down the rabbit hole after her and we can't find anything. Any help is appreciated. | iu1fu1e | iu1zn9q | 1,666,904,523 | 1,666,913,224 | 117 | 130 | According to 'Zoo Animal and Wildlife Immobilization and Anesthesia' (2nd edition): "We typically carry size 8–14 tubes (internal diameter in millimeters) for black bears and 8–18 tubes for brown bears". Here is a report describing endodontic therapy of a canine tooth in a polar bear. They used a 16 mm tube. | THESE are the type of questions we should be receiving in this subreddit!!! Everything else gets the "Please go to your nearest veterinarian" answer. | 0 | 8,701 | 1.111111 |
sbje7c | askvet_test | 0.93 | What's the lowest maintenance furry and cuddly home pet to get? Hey, I'm a single male who works and spends most of the time at home. What's the lowest maintenance furry and cuddly home pet to get in this case? | hu0ncve | hu0u920 | 1,643,031,972 | 1,643,035,205 | 91 | 139 | Not a vet, but a cat is your best option. They can freely roam your house so no special containers are needed, easily litter trained, food and water and treats, and they're fun to play with. Another thing to consider is the availability of food and vet care. Cats are obviously super common so your nearest pet store or even grocery store will have plenty of options for supplies. And there's no need for any kind of specialty vet. Try to find a cat rescue or shelter that knows the personality of the cats they're rehoming, they'll be great at matching you up with one that suits your needs. Get two for added fun! | Cat. I'd suggest getting an adult cat that's already socialized - there are tons of them at shelters needing a home, and they don't need as much interaction as a new kitten. | 0 | 3,233 | 1.527473 |
396dh6 | askvet_test | 0.93 | Found a kitten covered in oil a few days ago. She is staying on my porch and keeps having seizures. She is probably 6-8 weeks old. I found her crying and converted in oil. Took her home gave her a bath with dawn to remove the oil. She was grateful. She has worms and fleas so I have been giving her wet food mixed with food grade diatomaceous earth for the worms( she pooped 3 times and I didn't notice any worms in the third poop) I can't have her in my house because I have two adult cats and I don't know if she had any other diseases. She had been doing well over all eating wet and dry food and drinking water. The problem is she keeps freaking out and having seizures. She runs around the porch uncontrollably bumping into things for about 30 seconds to 2 minutes. The first day it happened 4 times and they were 1-2 minutes long and seemed to be bad. Yesterday she had 3 short ones. And today so far she had one short one. I thought it was poisoning from ingesting motor oil but its been 3 days and they and they still happening. I have zero dollars set aside for this kitten. I'm sure if I had to I could find the money to get her vaccines and fixed when the time comes but I can not afford to take her in for tests. Every place that I have called wants a donation or money to have her seen. I just want her to be okay it wasn't my intention to keep her I just couldn't let her walk around covered in oil and not do anything. My main question is how do seizures work when poisoned. Is it normal for them to occur for 3 or more days? Or is this most likely epilepsy or something else? Is there anything I can do to help minimize the seizures? Or does anyone know a place in Central Valley California area that will take a kitten and help them without requiring money? | cs0qiho | cs0tute | 1,433,868,090 | 1,433,873,046 | 11 | 14 | The kitten needs veterinary care. Can you put up an online donation thing to make $100 for the shelter? I know I'd contribute. | One approach may be to tell shelters that you are willing to foster the kitten. A lot of shelters won't take in any animals if they don't have room, but may help you take care of the kitten's vet costs and find her a new home when she's better if you can keep her at your house until she's adopted. Either way she absolutely needs to see a vet. Seizures can be caused by lots of different things, not just toxins. | 0 | 4,956 | 1.272727 |
mn31ms | askvet_test | 0.99 | My dog is decaying in front of my eyes Link to pics https://photos.app.goo.gl/kZsbnzjkkhCykgHW6 What the hell is happening to my dog? I've been taking him to the vet for months now. 6 1/2 year old border collie mix. We live in southern Wisconsin. He has two perfectly healthy doggie siblings. He started last October with just not being his happy hungry self, so vet expressed his anal glands. He continued to not eat much, appetite comes and goes. He started to yelp when we would pet him, but every few days the spot with pain would change. He had stool and urine samples, blood tests, x-ray and ultrasound. Nothing conclusive. Sometimes protein levels would be high, sometimes they weren't. Sometimes he had bacteria, sometimes he didn't. He started getting open sores, crusty spots, fur falling in clumps, random lumps under his skin. Some seemed to be by his lymph nodes, one was along his spine. He is NOT itching, and only occasionally does some licking. Scrapings taken from spots and biopsy of lumps. No mites, no obvious reason for the sores and scabs. Biopsy inconclusive. They couldn't rule out lymphoma, but there was nothing strongly indicating it. He does have a low grade fever and high white blood cell count. There are new sores popping up on a daily basis. I'm currently waiting on results from "better" tests. We've done two kinds of antibiotics with no improvement. Other than that, pain pills that don't really seem to help. My poor guy lays around all day. Sometimes he'll go out for a walk and at least forget about his pain for a little bit. But yeah, if you looked at the pics, you can see he's in agony. Please, I hope someone can figure this out! (If I can get the actual test details, I'll post those.) | gtv857m | gtv8q65 | 1,617,922,194 | 1,617,922,478 | 34 | 136 | Take him to a specialty vet. | It may be time for a consult with a dermatology specialist or an internal medicine specialist. Has your vet tried any immunosuppressive therapy like steroids? | 0 | 284 | 4 |
hs1tpo | askvet_test | 0.98 | I'm worried my new puppy may have vision problems Hello! Recently, my family adopted a 8-week-old, male mini American (Australian) shepherd. This is our first dog, but he seems to be behaving rather normally by our standards. Unfortunately, we believe that he may be experiencing some vision problems. He seems to squint and have a trouble noticing us until we make a loud sound (at first we initially passed this off as him just being an inattentive puppy). He likes to follow, but can often trot off in the wrong direction and lose track of us. He also seems to never chase tennis balls when thrown inside, but will run frenziedly towards the frisbee when it claps loudly against the hard floor. Today, I tried the menace reflex test several times, and received no blink whatsoever. If it helps, attached here are close-ups of his eyes. His pupils look a bit odd, but hopefully they're alright. What should I do? We are scheduling a routine check-up in the near future, but it would be great to hear whether he is okay, and if not, the treatment possibilities. Please let me know if any clarification is needed. Thanks! | fy8wl1q | fy8wd2w | 1,594,903,182 | 1,594,903,028 | 10 | 2 | Are both of his parents merles? Have you looked into his pedigree? | Honestly, a vision assessment is best made by a veterinarian during an in-person veterinary exam. In person, an ophthalmoscope can be used by a veterinarian to further examine the eye and may provide valuable insight into your dog's vision and overall health. An ophthalmic exam can be performed by most veterinarians during the initial wellness examination, especially when requested by a pet owner. By 12 weeks of age, your puppy should already have seen a veterinarian of your choosing. If so, contact that veterinarian for additional advice. If not, your puppy should definitely see a veterinarian ASAP. Even if a breeder assured you that your pup received a health assessment and has been totally vaccinated, you really should seek care from a veterinary professional with whom you've established your own veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Hope that helps! | 1 | 154 | 5 |
rwxaof | askvet_test | 0.96 | My GSD has eaten chocolates please I need advice as I may have covid Hi all please help, I have just rescued a German shepherd who is 1 year 11 months old, weighs 21.5kg and is spayed. I might have covid and am suffering from horrid fatigue. I went to sleep in bed and a parcel was posted for me, which was a present of a box of chocolates. Whilst I was asleep, she managed to open it and get into them but hasn’t managed to get past most of the plastic to eat many. She has eaten 5 chocolates from the selection box - all mainly milk chocolate, a couple coated with a thin layer of dark chocolate. Some also have a VERY tiny sprinkling of almond/hazelnut on them. The weigh approx 3-5g each I’m terrified, I’ve had her for 3 weeks and we’re each other’s family now. I feel like such a horrid dog owner and I’m worried she’ll get sick. This happened anytime from half an hour to an hour ago and she’s just sleeping as normal at the moment. I’m concerned because I’m self isolating I can’t take her to the vets, it’s also the late evening here and they aren’t open but do have an emergency line if I need it. An old lab of mine once managed to open a cupboard and eat an entire toblerone with no issues. If it helps, my GSD was found on the streets and eating whatever she could managed to find. I hope it’s not wishful thinking to think that she might be able to tolerate some funkier food because of this? Please help, what do i do? I can’t just go somewhere to get anything because of possibly having covid (still waiting for my test result but I feel like shit), I don’t have anything to induce vomiting. | hrg2sz4 | hrfgmfz | 1,641,441,286 | 1,641,429,242 | 22 | 5 | It takes quite a bit of pure chocolate to pose a toxicity risk. She migh have an icky tummy from the sugar but she’ll be OK. I would be more worried about “low cal” stuff with xylitol than chocolate candies with sugar. | The animal poison control numbers are in the sidebar and FAQ. | 1 | 12,044 | 4.4 |
96vf8d | askvet_test | 0.89 | Cat having a deep cut (dog bite?) and seems sick. We have no access to vet. I'm looking for any tips on what to do, searching the web does not help much because taking the cat to a vet is not an option. We live in tropical conditions in the middle of the Pacific ocean. Species: Domestic cat Age: 10 months Sex/Neuter status: male, not neutered Body weight: Normal History: The cat lives mainly indoors, now returned from runaway and has got a deep wound. We noticed the injury 3 days ago. He seems now tired, and has no appetite and drinks very little. We have tropical climate here and he seems even to be too lazy to find to the coolest room with a/c. Now, three days after, he keeps licking the wound, which is now bright red and is bleeding a little, leaving a red stain on the floor where he has been sleeping. (Links to pics attached) We live on Tarawa atoll in Kiribati, and there is no vet available. There is only the most essential medicine available in hospitals and only one pharmacy to look for medicine, but the selection is narrow. At home we have a reserve of medicines and supplies, like antiseptics, bacitracin/neomycin gel and Cephalexin 500 mg tablets. Please, any help is welcome. We would appreciate to hear what are the realistic options... to look for some medication, trying to cover the cut to prevent licking, or something else. I understand this is maybe a serious case now... Thank you in advance so much. First pic showing the cut 3 days ago: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mi38th9h969ub0i/lepakko-bite-3206.jpg Second one showing the cut right now: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zi0wa73nl4nk168/lepakko-bite-3224.jpg | e43k2ug | e43jwik | 1,534,137,245 | 1,534,136,985 | 14 | 12 | I know you say you can’t get to a vet but that seems painfully infected and really requires a doctors care, knowledge and medications most likely. (Antibiotics) | Seems like need antibiotics | 1 | 260 | 1.166667 |
jlcr3x | askvet_test | 0.98 | All pets in the house are itching, but they have no fleas and have all been treated for fleas with collars. We have a 2 year old terrier/hound mix dog, a long haired cat, and three short haired cats all between 3 and 5 years old. They have all had flea treatment and wear sirestro collars with no signs of fleas. For some reason they are constantly itching for the past 3 months and we can't figure out what it is. One cat was itching so bad she ended up getting dermatitis and had to be on an antibiotic and a steroid for 2 weeks. She stopped itching while on those but within 2 days after her treatment she went right back to the itching. We've tried different types of foods including some with probiotics and some that claimed to be for healthy skins and coats. Iams, Hills, and Friskies were some brands. For wet food we've tried Friskies, Iams, and Sheeba. We've tried both tap water and bottled water for them to drink. Nothing has been cleaned with any chemicals. One cat had a stool sample checked and it came back fine, no worms or anything. I don't know what we are missing. I don't think it's a behavioral issue since they're all doing it and there isn't any new stress in their environment and they seem fine otherwise. Could there be some other bug like mites or something that would cause this? We're really at a loss on what to do. | gaomi27 | gaoof7a | 1,604,134,440 | 1,604,136,809 | 7 | 27 | Have you been flea treating the house and car as well as the animals ? | Are they still wearing their flea collars? Is it possible that they react to the treatment? | 0 | 2,369 | 3.857143 |
gqw5li | askvet_test | 0.98 | Starting my first day as a vet assistant So today will be my first day being a vet assistant and I’m a little overwhelmed at how much there is to do. I’m a slower learner and I don’t want to seem as if I’m taking too long to learn the routine. I’m just starting training today. Is there any advice anybody could give me? | frvb2qw | frvdzew | 1,590,500,366 | 1,590,502,035 | 20 | 38 | No one expects you to get everything perfect. Of course you will have a training period, but the real training extends beyond that. You will be learning the necessities of your job for at least six months or more. Be open and honest with the other staff and your doctor(s) if you don't know how to do something or if you don't know what something is that they ask you about. When you're dealing with living animals it's all about safety first, so listen extra hard when they're teaching you about safety. Safety and holdling is honestly 75% of the job | Have a notebook, use it for what you need to do, writing how to do things, cool cases etc. Have spare pens (vets are always stealing them off nurses over here :p ) make sure you take breaks and eat/ drink. Asking how you can help is not going to cause problems unless you're doing it constantly. Other general workplace etiquette like don't use your phone etc | 0 | 1,669 | 1.9 |
vfwmgj | askvet_test | 0.94 | My dog accidentally ate an entire pizza. Can someone please let me know if he will be okay and any potential warning signs to watch out for? Okay, so yesterday evening my dog, Hudson, got into an unopened box of pizza. My son was in the same room and supposed to make sure Hud didn’t get into it, but apparently got preoccupied on his tablet and stopped paying attention. I went to sleep before this happened so only found out this morning. But Hudson sleeps with me in my hospital bed. (Bad car wreck a year and a half ago). I woke up at 4 am this morning and noticed Hudson had gas and sounded like stomach ache/growling noises. I’ve always heard dogs are lactose intolerant and that’s why they can’t eat chocolate so I’m worried about Hudson. All pizza & dog details below: Hudson 4 years old Goldendoodle symptoms noticed at 4 am - they are mild , nothing severe or constant. Gas seems to be gone now Stomach noises still persist maybe every 15-20 minute *note: there has been no vomiting or diarrhea The Pizza 1/2 was pineapple and Italian sausage for my wife 1/2 was bacon and mushroom for my son Can someone here please let me know if there is any thing I should look out for and if this could hurt or make hud seriously sick? | icylpwb | icyocjw | 1,655,657,321 | 1,655,658,545 | 82 | 171 | Same pup same. Totally an accident. Your boy will probably have some GI upset. | Dogs are not supposed to eat chocolate because of the cocoa, not the milk products. | 0 | 1,224 | 2.085366 |
g49e6k | askvet_test | 0.99 | Helping cats recover from a traumatic event last night. Hello, last night one of my cats got their paw stuck in a helium birthday balloon, panicked and dashed around the house in a complete panic. This happened about 3am in the morning making me almost poop myself from the sound and scaryness. I had to chase him down, secure him and cut the balloon loose as it was tight on his paw. Two days later he is still in panic mode, he won’t leave his hidey-holes and won’t socialise anymore both with me and his fuzzy brother who also panicked, but recovered the morning after the event. I want to tell him everything is safe, but he won’t eat, sleep or leave his hiding spots anymore. Does he need more time? Should I try to involve his brother that’s 100% ok after the event? I have tried everything I can think of but now he has become the drama king of extreme. He is a cat. Orange. Syberian forest cats. Highly energetic. He is rather stupid and normally eats a lot of food before he becomes the super speed monster. But not now after balloon attack. | fny2dkc | fnwwuiu | 1,587,351,731 | 1,587,327,016 | 12 | 5 | Try wrapping him snuggly in a thick towel; holding him til he’s calm and speaking softly. Walk him around the house. Do this often | Was it yesterday or was it two days ago? | 1 | 24,715 | 2.4 |
c7n3ra | askvet_test | 0.96 | 16 brands of dog food linked to heart disease - my dog eats one of them Just heard on the news that the FDA has linked 16 brands of dog food to heart disease in dogs. One of those brands is Blue Buffalo, which my 9 year old Cairn Terrier has been eating his whole life. Currently he is very healthy (just had a vet check about a month ago) but I don’t want anything to develop! Should we switch his food? How do you go about switching food for a senior dog who has been eating the same type of food his whole life? And what type of dog food is recommended? | esgcymi | esgcjal | 1,561,949,465 | 1,561,949,124 | 32 | 13 | There was a thread on this topic the other day in this sub, it was recommended to change brands. | Do you have a link to the foods affected ? | 1 | 341 | 2.461538 |
lmdq9l | askvet_test | 0.93 | I'm so tired of feeling like I'm fighting the whole veterinary system just to save my cat. I don't know if this is acceptable here or not.... But I'm literally being broken by the veterinary system here in San Diego, it's sapping all my will. I'm emotionally exhausted trying to save my 2 year old Maine Coon. I had to call upwards of 25 vets just to get an ultrasound on a Sunday, to low and behold... Show that the x-rays were useless and my boy had an intusseception. He gets the surgery and they send him home 36 hours later without anti-nausea and when the cerenia and mirtazapine run out he sits there licking his lips and swallowing every 20 seconds, gagging every 10 minutes, won't eat or drink anything.... I call the vet TWICE... 3 hours later still no call back .... I'm sitting here on the floor balling my eyes out ready to throw in the towel. I'm so freaking tired of fighting tooth and nail just to save my babies life in what feels like a heartless system. Six months ago my other cat died waiting 8+ hours for an ultrasound that didn't come until he vomited blood into his lungs. | gnv8hct | gnv3kf2 | 1,613,637,976 | 1,613,633,545 | 69 | 57 | I'm sorry you and your pet are having such a hard time. I hope my thoughts come across as kind, because i don't want you to be more stressed than what you already are. If I read your post correctly he has been treated for the most serious issue, the intussusception, by the ER clinic? That's great! Generally after discharge from an ER a recheck is scheduled for follow up with your GP. Do you have any info on that yet? If not I would imagine you will have a call in the morning to schedule it. When was he discharged? If he was just discharged a few hours ago, he is probably still well hydrated from his ER stay. If he's nauseaus and stressed from the last few days he's not going to eat. Even with medication he might not eat right now. Overall it sounds like you've been through the worst of everything, so try to take heart in that. We're all suffering now because of Covid, humans, pets, even wildlife and zoo animals. The vet community is doing the best we can with what we have. The system isn't broken, it's just bottlenecked because there aren't enough resources. We already were in need of more vets, technicians, and staff before Covid. The pandemic has just compounded everything. Hopefully things will begin to improve this year. I don't think any person in vet med is happy with how things are currently in the US. | It's easy to blame "the system". But what is "the system"? Lack of veterinarians? Lack of techs? Lack of ultrasound specialists? Most techs leave to go into human medicine because they cannot survive off the wage and are burnt out by the clients abuse. Not a lot of people can afford vet school, or are in huge debt after graduation. When we do graduate we get told it's a "money grab", it's "too expensive", blah blah but expect exceptional patient care similar to human medicine. Unfortunately this field doesn't get paid enough. People get insurance but complain about paying $30-75 a month for pet insurance and then scream at us for not being able to treat their pets. If only we get the same amount of respect as human doctors/nurses perhaps more people would actually be in this field. If one clinic is unable to see you or unresponsive go to another one. It's nobody's fault we are stretched thin. | 1 | 4,431 | 1.210526 |
grwxf9 | askvet_test | 0.98 | Is pet insurance/wellness plans worth it for an adult dog with a lot of health problems? My dog Coconut is a 6 year old spayed Maltese mix. We got her from the animal shelter when she was 1 and she’s had... a lot of health issues since then. She had recurrent ear infections, skin problems, knee problems(with her hind leg) and eye infections twice. My parents have already spent so much money on her care, admins we have mostly taken her to Tijuana for ver care, since it’s cheaper. Of course with COVID-19, we haven’t been able to cross the border frequently and I’ve been looking for a vet here that I can take her too. Besides all her medical issues, she also has really bad breath and I want to get her teeth taken care of. I’m set to start a new job in September which will give me more money that I’m hoping to contribute to her care. With all those things considered, is pet care worth it? We’ve hoped around different vets here in the US(mainly using first client gets a free visit coupon) but I’m looking for consistency for her care. Should I get pet insurance and if so what kind? Should I look into wellness plans? | fs1qcuj | fs1soi2 | 1,590,633,416 | 1,590,634,818 | 10 | 22 | I have pet insurance for my dog who is prone to health issues. If you're pet already has issues, they'll be considered preexisting and won't be covered. But because my dog is high maintenance, she's had other health issues and the insurance has helped a lot! | Let me rephrase my comment. Maybe check out Banfield’s wellness plan. I BELIEVE you can do any of the plans even with “pre existing” conditions. | 0 | 1,402 | 2.2 |
gl1v0y | askvet_test | 0.98 | Our dog snapped off or ripped out a nail today - does it need a vet's attention? Year and a half old mixed breed dog, somehow snagged or broke off a nail while playing with another dog. Didn't notice until we saw she was leaving bloody footprints. Packed some cornstarch in to the foot, bleeding has pretty much stopped. Got her to go lay in her crate for a few hours (glad she's still ok with that!) and is only just now starting to limp a bit, but isn't overly bothered about it. https://imgur.com/a/am76smw | fqv2tm9 | fqv3mrw | 1,589,668,745 | 1,589,669,208 | 34 | 61 | Yes absolutely go see a vet. | While these are very quick vet visits, they definitely need to be seen by a vet. | 0 | 463 | 1.794118 |
tq3lt1 | changemyview_test | 0.67 | CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring. So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester. Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later. Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated. Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up. Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away. | i2eunde | i2ev2sh | 1,648,452,468 | 1,648,452,830 | 19 | 157 | “roasting nominated celebrities” jada wasn’t nominated so even by your own logic chris was wrong. will was nominated and the dig at jada wasn’t a dig at will at all - it was an insult to jada that had nothing to do with will meaning it wasn’t a roast of a nominated celebrity at all. | Are you referring to the same Academy of Motion Pictures who awarded the 2002 Best Picture to a film directed by a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled to Europe to escape serving time? If so, I don’t think a little slap is going to sway them. I do believe that Smith won the award fair and square, and should keep the Oscar. I also think he should be removed from contention for any future awards and permanently banned from attending the ceremony. | 0 | 362 | 8.263158 |
pnhrn0 | changemyview_test | 0.78 | CMV: In a Representative Democracy, there should be no Winning or Losing in Elections. So, it is often taken for granted that the US (I will be using the US for this post, but this can be applied to any representative "democratic" body) that we have representative democracy. We do not. **If you "vote" for a candidate in a representative body that loses their election, you have no voice in our democracy.** In order to give people true voices in their politics, we should move to affirmational representation. This would mean the following: 1. Elections are just periods in which you can select your representative. 2. Any representative is now a member of that body representing and casting X # of votes. 3. For ease of discussion and debate (US House of Reps example) only the top 435 representatives sit in the house for debate. Others can cast votes, but not debate. 4. Voting inside the body will thus be based on total votes. For example, you may need 150,000,000+ votes to pass a bill in the House of Reps in the United States. 5. Non-voters could be considered "okay with any" and their representation could be split proportionally amongst all eligible. 6. A person election to say "none of these" would be a vote of no confidence, and thus "against" any bill that comes before the body. 7. Same restrictions on candidacy, term limits, etc. can apply is so chosen. Example of how this would work: 1. You turn in a ballot with a person's name on it. 2. If they get enough votes to pass the minimum threshold (or not, maybe no threshold) is now your representative. 3. Every "election" you get to choose someone new, or the same person. CMV: This would be an ACTUAL Representative Body. | hcpeoki | hcpddum | 1,631,549,341 | 1,631,548,799 | 18 | 8 | Most of the votes that take place in Democracy are winner takes all because the alternative is simply impractical. Let's use the example of a local election, such as voting for a mayor, or police chief. There is precisely one office to fill, and so the winner is whoever gets the most votes. Depending on your voting system, this will either be a FPTP system (highest individual total wins), or some form of run-off where the least popular candidate is struck and then secondary choices of his voters are applied, then the process repeats until someone has a majority (above 50%). This means that there is no way to sensibly split the results without creating government bloat. In order for people's votes to "not be wasted", you would effectively need every office to have a committee of 3-5 (or more) equally-ranked people, filled proportional to the votes cast. This would not make society better - it would simply waste tax money and see that nothing is ever accomplished. Moreover, any politician or elected official who isn't utterly stupid will pay attention to the elections that got them into power. If you win by the narrowest of margins, you will be fully aware that margin might disappear next election. This is why you find the most moderate candidates in 'swing' counties / districts / states, and the very worst candidates in safe seats. The former know they have to appeal to their rivals' voters if they want to maintain office, the latter know the sheep will keep them in power no matter how corrupt they are. So you absolutely do have a voice, even if your candidate loses. If you find yourself in an absolute minority position where your chosen candidates are being utterly destroyed consistently, that isn't proof democracy is broken - it's proof you hold views completely out of alignment with your community, for better or worse. | So, what do you do with those "representatives" that get a handful of vote (or even just one)? Do you pay all their expenses to be able to be full-time representatives (listen to all the debates in the parliament, go to all the votes, etc.)? If yes, this will make the political system extremely expensive. People will also misuse it. They will set themselves up for being a representative and then just vote for themselves, voila, they are now a "representative" with a cushy job in the capital. If not, but instead you set some vote threshold that the candidates have to get before becoming a representative, then your basis idea gets trashed and all the good things about it go down in drain as then there will be people without representation. Most of the problems you can fix by using a proportional voting system. If you elect the 435 (or whatever) representatives so that their proportions in the parliament represents the number of votes their party got in the election and the people from the party who get to be the representatives, are those who got the most votes in that party, then you get pretty much all the benefits of your system. You won't have a person as your representative, but a combination of the party and the person In the next election you can vote the same party's different candidate or a different party altogether. edit. In principle you could modify the proportional system towards your system so that everyone's vote is recorded in the system (but kept secret). Any day you like, you walk to the voting place of your city and say that you want to change your vote. At that point one vote is deducted from the party that you voted before and given to some other party. If this forces a change in the parliament, then one MP there is fired and a new one takes his/her place. So, you can change your "representative" whenever you like and there's no need for any set elections. The government just naturally collapses and a new takes its place, when enough voters have changed their mind. | 1 | 542 | 2.25 |
qe4x5l | changemyview_test | 0.59 | CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say "I identify as a woman", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole). So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https://www.google.com/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1) | hhqo6a7 | hhqoc8a | 1,634,995,773 | 1,634,995,861 | 2 | 26 | I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature. | Arent there are already protective units within most prisons for vulnerable prisoners? Also the stat about trans offenders is pretty worthless given the sample size is so tiny | 0 | 88 | 13 |
hd8ufm | changemyview_test | 0.94 | CMV: The Internet SHOULD be a place for nuanced discussion and the proliferation of new ideas. The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. I tend to get into heated discussions on the Internet, reddit in particular. But people are quicker to respond with an insult, degradation, or only half-construct an argument that conveniently leaves out an important piece of information to the topic that would hinder their own argument. Vitriol and anger seem to be people’s first reaction nowadays, and I’m having trouble not leaving social media altogether akin to the way that I left Twitter and Facebook in response to vitriol and an abhorrence towards criticism. Whether correct or incorrect or right or wrong, the first reaction many people have is to decry someone’s point. Outside of hate speech, racism, or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a user should be able to take their hits but keep talking to whoever it is they are discussing a topic with. More and more I just shrug my shoulders and stop responding, as things get more heated and people only get more entrenched in their views. I just went through an Internet exchange where my mind was almost changed, but the person kept following up with ‘your argument is flawed’ or ‘you keep flip flopping’ every time I conceded a point or said I appreciate their point but here is why you are wrong. I’m sure I’ll get plenty of people who will say ‘if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet/reddit/social media’ to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles. I believe that Internet toxicity stems from being behind the screen and not in someone’s face. We all know someone who says hateful or hurtful or conspiracy theory-fueled online that will either backtrack or avoid talking about it when it is brought up to them in person. I used to believe reddit was that place where people could debate in public in the comments without fear of vitriol or hate but I have less and less of that kind of discussion on this platform. The kind of cogent, nuanced discussion truly needed to change someone’s views on a topic is soon to be impossible. If in the case of something that is not objectively morally wrong, I believe that the majority of users would respond with insults and not their stance on a topic. If I went to r/gunpolitics and said the ‘second amendment in the USA is flawed because guns are far more dangerous now than the founders ever could have imagined,’ would I get arguments about how the importance of arming oneself is still important regardless of weapons technology, and arguments and evidence to back that up, or would I get everything decrying me as a communist who want to take their guns and their civil liberties? I’d argue the latter. Maybe there is a place for discussion and using the Internet as a communication tool and not a weapon, but it’s hard to not get apathetic about this issue. You can’t keep having the same conversations with your friends. It used to be that, people had to think about what they said but now it’s all people being triggered, and those people being called shills, or someone afraid of offending so many different people that their argument is stymied or just castrated since the thing is just bland. Change my view. Please. | fvjo8oa | fvjpgv7 | 1,592,754,263 | 1,592,754,964 | 2 | 33 | Nothing in your post seems to back up why you think that this is a "failure of the user and not the platform". Do you actually think that the design of the platforms that you're using on the internet are *not at all* responsible for the behavior that you're describing? | > The fact that it is not is a failure of the user and not the platform. Firstly. I would like to change your view on this point. It is the fault of the user and the platform. How a platform is designed is going to affect what users can get away with and - by extension - what users engage. This is why discourse and content quality varies dramatically from platform to platform and subreddit to subreddit. For example, there is a huge range of quality that you get from jumping from /r/politics to /r/PoliticalDiscussion to /r/NeutralPolitics. Why? If all of these subreddits are divisions of the same site? Merely because they have varying rules on what can be posted and how you can engage in comments. Which leads to them being having differing qualities (and quantity) of discourse. The same goes for this sub. Someone could respond with calling you a bunch of names or telling you to suck it up, but a mod would come and remove that response because it breaks the rules. People will be people, but only so far as you let them. I rarely engage at Neutral Politics because it requires sources for all of your major claims and I rarely have them available at hand. So I don't engage often, but when I do, I'm forced to meet a certain standard that I might not have met otherwise. The platform's design matters. Since you explicitly mention Twitter: I think Twitter's design is especially bad for discussion. * Limits on characters discourages nuanced points and citing your sources often. * The fact that you might have to spread your point across several posts makes it difficult to follow any singular thread and have a cohesive and clear discussion. * The lack of moderation means toxic or hostile comments are almost never going to be removed. * The fact that there is little to no community voting that increases visibility (like upvotes or likes) means you see everything with no "value sorting". If a comment in this thread is bad, it will be downvoted (or not upvoted) and I'd be less likely to see it when compared to a good one. On Twitter, they're all on equal footing in many cases. All of this leads to Twitter being especially toxic in almost every way. > I’m sure I’ll get plenty of people who will say ‘if you want nuance and civility why did you come to the Internet/reddit/social media’ to which I respond how else am I able to attempt to forge a connection with people who I am unlikely to ever meet in person? I am subject to where I live, and even my race and gender in some circles. I agree with this point, so I won't be changing your view on how this isn't realistic, but mostly that idea is more idealistic than anything else. Yes, you can have civil discussions with people you know, but people you know will more than likely not be educated enough to have such a discussion and will - often rightfully so - shy away from the discussion entirely. I will fight you on your views to the death if I disagree, but I think friends or family are much more likely to agree-to-disagree because of their investments in your relationships. So yes, things stay civil but they often don't push the boundaries at all, which is why so many people talk about their racist uncle/grandparent or sexist father or whoever else. Real life is not better for debate or discourse. It's better if your goal is to avoid all forms of hostility, but not if you want to find someone that will push you. | 0 | 701 | 16.5 |
ffc2o9 | changemyview_test | 0.92 | CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot. It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest. | fjxhm7o | fjxgt3v | 1,583,673,557 | 1,583,672,738 | 1,466 | 212 | Manslaughter requires direct participation in the person's death, so does murder. A more appropriate charge would be criminal negligence. Negligence is the absence of action. You can not convict someone for murder without them actively participating in the death. Unless the parents deliberately infected the child, they took no active part in the death. It was their lack of action which was a contributing factor. On the other hand, negligence has been used to punish circumstances where parents refuse medical treatment for their children. These two Canadian parents were found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of their 14 month old child. They basically refused to take him to hospital, and tried to use various natural remedies, until it was too late. He eventually died of what should have been a treatable infection. They were sentenced to two and a half years in prison. ​ Basically, you can't convict someone of murder or manslaughter for being negligent by taking no action. Murder and manslaughter require you to play a direct role in someone's death. Criminal negligence causing death would be the appropriate charge. ​ That being said, I don't think refusing vaccination merits a criminal approach like this. Edit: For those interested, here is the transcript of the full court judgement for the case mentioned above. Fills in a lot of details. The most pathetic/infuriating part were the searches the parents conducted online: ***"can cabbage leaves cure gangerene?"*** If you search for that, and dont seek medical care, then you are responsible for what is happening to your child in my mind. | Anti-vaxxers are fucking idiots and and recklessly dangerous, BUT they wholeheartedly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are protecting their child. Against a huge conspiracy. If you believed that people were coming to kidnap and murder your child, and the police said they didn't believe it and to forget about it, what would you do? You might improve your home security, you might even attack people you didn't know, who were trying to get close (on their way elsewhere walking past your child) If you had a mental illness and believed this, your actions would likely be the same. But probably should not go to jail for this. People who genuinely are trying to do things which they believe are good, should have a punishment, mitigated by their intent. Anti-vaxxers, though dangerous, should be treated as well meaning idiots. Mandatory vaccination, is the right response. | 1 | 819 | 6.915094 |
a0q6fp | changemyview_test | 0.64 | CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape should be against the law, with repercussions similar to that of people committing rape. Falsely accusing someone of rape is mentally debilitating, ruins social interactions from long friends or total strangers potentially forever, and in the worst case people go to jail for a long time for being falsely accused. And in many cases people who are falsely accusing others of rape get off with a slap on the wrist and a “talking to” with only a few very publicized cases actually leading to legal repercussion. And how is someone supposed to react after being accused of rape? If they’re defensive, people assume they’re trying to bury what happened with lies. And if they do nothing, nobody ever knows what happened, and can potentially spread worse rumours, not to mention the fact that the person who falsely accused them gets to live on and possibly even forget they ever said that. Whereas the person who was accused has to live where many people see them as an awful person, and refuse to interact with them, even going as far as to warn others not to. People even develop the idea that maybe they did do something wrong and they didn’t know, and that it might happen again, so they’re very weary of any potentially romantic situations, ruining their self confidence and possibly sending them into a deep depression. | eajlfpl | eajm5m1 | 1,543,284,435 | 1,543,285,075 | 25 | 41 | It already is against the law to falsely file a police report. And people who are raped are already scared to come forward, we shouldnt add to that fear that if people don't believe them they're going to prison aswell. Why add something specifically for the crime of rape? | No, because this would discourage reporting rape, and would criminalize true victims who cannot prove their allegation. Rape is a very hard charge to prove, as most cases come down to "he said, she said". This is why externalities - such as dress, behavior, etc. - are used to help determine who is telling the truth. These have been attacked in recent years, because they inherently remove agency from a woman - as in, wearing tight clothing does not mean that the woman wants to have sex, and it especially does not mean that she doesn't have the right to change her mind about sex between when she puts it on and when the two individuals are alone. Yes, false rape allegations happen. The rate at which they happen is rather disputed, because it is difficult to distinguish between a false charge and a true charge where we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Remember, convictions require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in many situations a jury can reasonably doubt that the sex was not consensual. So knowing that, imagine that you are a woman who has been raped, perhaps by an acquaintance or a spouse, with no witnesses or evidence to show that it was not consensual. Do you make a report, in the hopes that he will confess or that evidence might exist to prove he committed the crime, or to try and establish a pattern of behavior so that he won't get away with it in the future (or even just for your own peace of mind)? Or do you refrain from making a report, because you'll probably be charged and/or convicted under the law against false rape charges? On the whole, the fear of prosecution would reduce the number of rape allegations, both real ones and fake ones. That's not what we want. If you think that's hyperbolic, look at the case of prostitutes. Violence against prostitutes and escorts is quite common, but those crimes are seldom reported, as the women are afraid of being prosecuted for their sex work instead of being taken seriously as a victim. Some efforts have been made to protect victims from being prosecuted in this manner, but it's not universal. | 0 | 640 | 1.64 |
i7fbip | changemyview_test | 0.62 | CMV: If your first and immediate response to equality between genders is, "so that means men can hit women," then you're probably sexist! I'll preface with this: yes, gender equality would mean treating genders equally, so men shouldn't view women as weaker or treat them differently because of gender. So yeah, the whole "you shouldn't fight a girl because she's a girl" logic is inherently sexist. So I don't disagree with the fact that gender equality means throwing that whole idea out. ​ However... ​ If your very first thought is to use gender equality as a justification for violence against women, you're most likely misogynistic, or maybe you're just trying to crack a really annoying overused joke, idk. When I think of feminism, I think of equality in opportunities - in the eyes of the law, in healthcare, in sports, in the job market, in education, in STEM fields and so on; my very first thought isn't "oOo so that means men should be allowed to hit girls!" Like why are your thoughts on feminism immediately connected to what men can do because of feminism? Why is your first instinct violence against women instead of considering how much more positive women's lives can be as gender equality improves? Why is feminism seen as a justification for doing more wrong? ​ Feminism should focus on lifting women up so that they are on equal footing as men and get the same treatment and opportunities as men get. So why are you immediately resorting to the new opportunities men can get as feminism develops? Also, yes you can theoretically fight women like you would men, but I feel like with the men who don't understand feminism well, they're going to take this as "I'm allowed to hit women" when in reality the notion should only apply to situations like fighting in self-defense. Some people are definitely going to take gender equality as "men are \*allowed\* to fight women" instead of "men should not be held back from violence against any gender if they are in a situation of self-defense or where violence is necessary." ​ Again, I agree that saying things like "I don't fight women," "I can't hit her because she's a girl," etc. are sexist; they are. But, if the first thing you think of when you think of gender equality is hitting women, out of all things that could change because of feminism...you got problems. ​ Sorry in advance if any explanation was unclear, I kinda suck at writing out arguments. But go ahead, CMV if you want, would love to hear what anyone has to say. | g11vakn | g11wwrm | 1,597,105,541 | 1,597,106,446 | 13 | 28 | This might not make much sense but bare with me. In my experience most men have experienced being assaulted by women, and they've been forced to just take it. Equality in violence resonates in men's brains because it's the side of inequality that we've personally experienced. When women think gender equality they think societal opportunity, bodily autonomy, fair wages etc. All the things they've been denied. When men think gender equality they think equality of violence. Because that's the relevant inequality to many men. So I don't think men say this in a sexist way, just a selfish way. Instead of listening to women's grievances they jump straight to "what do I get out of it? No more swallowing violence from women." | I think the point of the response used here is to go to an extreme. It's hyperbolic to show why the line of intellectual consistency will fall apart at some point, not because it's the man immediately latching onto any reason to justify hitting a woman. If there's an objective point where two rational people will diverge on a topic, I think that's actually a fairly productive place to start from. If we can establish why we divulge from that spot, we can back up to earlier steps in the progression until we find the spot where the divulgence starts, which helps both parties rationalize their standpoints along the way. | 0 | 905 | 2.153846 |
iyadzo | changemyview_test | 0.77 | CMV: It is a moral imperative of countries who abide by human rights to coerce other countries to respect human rights I have discussed this twice with two people IRL and both times I seem to be in the wrong so I am wanting to challenge my thinking. The scenario is like this; China is currently interring the Uyghurs and effectively committing genocide by forcibly sterilising the population. My view is that countries “in the west” should coerce China to stop this activity and if it led to the use of military force then so be it. The counter-argument both parties I’ve talked to with have said that it is not “the west’s” job to impose its views on other countries (effectively anti-imperialism) and that morality is subjective, something I disagree with strongly in the situation of right to freedom. I also feel this way about North Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. “The west” should intervene in any country where basic human rights are not respected. Wherever there are people who are oppressed by a regime, it is morally reprehensible, to me, to not use every method available to assist them. The argument to me that “they will figure it out for themselves” is completely devoid of humanity. That is to say that the pain and suffering of people in these countries right now will pay off later when that country becomes “enlightened”. How would I feel living in these societies with the knowledge that life does not have to be this way, that there are countries who are incredibly powerful, more so than mine, that could help but don’t? I can’t wrap my head around why it is wrong to forcibly coerce countries to respect basic human rights. Please change my view. | g6bjd7r | g6bgere | 1,600,871,129 | 1,600,869,504 | 22 | 12 | So I spent some time serving in rural Afghanistan, and nothing has more profoundly proven to me that what you're arguing for is (in many cases) functionally impossible without doing something even worse to coerce a change. Imagine a society where women are in a separate social class between livestock and people, and where the overwhelming majority of both sexes are more or less fine with that. Every social and religious institution functionally supports that norm, and the people are so accustomed to poverty that they can't really be coerced by the threat of deprivation. You can maybe give them incentives to change, but they feel no great need to honor such agreements beyond absolute necessity - when cash stops flowing or you stop supervising, they just go back to doing what they did before. How do you change them? You'd need to perpetrate a cultural genocide via a de facto police state that fundamentally rearranged their social order. It would mean an insanely bloody conflict that probably wouldn't be won short of full-blown decimation of the (al least male) population. And that's assuming you were willing to stick to something like existing LOAC. You might try something else... Terrorism. You could kidnap the sons of powerful leaders and start sending chunks back to their families. You could make a show of bombing and killing people for defying you in the slightest. YOu could outright steal their daughters and give them to Western families to be raised with better values. Of course, if you do that, it raises the question of whether you're actually better anymore. We tend to look at what our militaries can do and be rightly impressed - as conventional forces, they're the best that have ever existed in human history. But what you're describing...this "intervention" isn't a war. It's something else entirely, and we aren't capable of doing it. | Have you considered that some populations actually demand (as in, would vote for) human rights abuses? Much like the war on drugs, or any attempt by a government to subvert the *actual* will of the populace, a foreign government intervention would likely have more unintended consequences and backlash effects than it would have in actual benefits to human rights. If the majority of a population actual wants to treat others badly, an outside intervention will not solve that problem -- **only an "inside intervention", i.e. a change of the will of the people, will solve that problem**. | 1 | 1,625 | 1.833333 |
omfp29 | changemyview_test | 0.94 | CMV: I think the government should introduce legislations barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. So Glen Greenwald wrote an article detailing Nancy and Paul Pelosi’s stock portfolio. 75% of their stock trading over the last 2 years was in big tech companies in Silicon Valley. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the house, which is controlled by committees overseen by Nancy Pelosi. Nancy was even taking personal calls with Apple ceo Tim Cook, the Pelosi’s traded 17% of their portfolio with apple. This is a massive conflict of interest and even though Nancy has come out and said she and her husband don’t discuss these things it still makes you wonder how truthful she is being about this. So I think the government needs to create legislation barring spouses of legislators from trading stock. | h5klzrd | h5ko9ts | 1,626,567,038 | 1,626,568,250 | 9 | 90 | Just spouses? Shouldnt it also be the legislator themselves, the kids, or any immediate relative. Their job shouldnt be focused on luxurious amounts of money for themselves and family. Their job is to focus on legislation for the general good of the country. If they don't like that rule. Then they should stop having legislation power and play the stock market full time like everyone else without insider information. Legislators don't need massive amounts of money. They already get more than a decent salary to live in a safe neighborhood and send kids to good schools with the best benefits the country has to offer. Any more than that is just greed and luxury. | If what you allege is true, that she was inside trading, then it's already illegal. | 0 | 1,212 | 10 |
n9xgwv | changemyview_test | 0.64 | CMV: Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with "faith" or appeals to authority how religion does and the proof is in the way science manifests in reality. I recently posted a comment regarding the difference between faith in religion and the "faith" in atheism. A lot of my reasoning against this lies in the fact that science manifests in reality. I dont think I have heard any arguments that give concrete examples of manifestations of religion in reality, apart from maybe stating that is where our morals come from (and even that is quite contentious I believe). I mainly would like to see where the holes in my argument are and what things I am not taking into account on the religious side. I would consider most good faith arguments about the role religion plays in reality as a CMV as I said I cannot think of anything that can compare. Please see my comment below regarding my belief of why Atheism is not based in faith: >The biggest difference between religion and atheism is most atheists would say they believe in science and following the evidence. So let's look at the evidence in the real world: Science has given us planes, cars, computers, rocketry, global positioning satellites, nuclear power. A bunch of things that actually ***work*** in reality. You can see science producing actual benefits (or detriments if you're so inclined, because all that really matters in this case is the evidence). You yourself can actually look into why something works and test it right now because of science. I struggle to think of anything religion has made reality, except maybe science itself. >To quote Ricky Gervais: >>Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. >>Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result. | gxqb783 | gxqbb37 | 1,620,742,109 | 1,620,742,157 | 5 | 11 | The definition of atheism I know is pretty much a declaration of faith in itself: "I believe there is no God." If you do not agree that this is a faith, consider this: You state you are absolutely certain that no God exists. You're not claiming there is no *proof* God exists, that science cannot prove a higher being exists. Science itself, however, never "proves" anything. Scientists propose theory and then try to falsify them, to the best of of their abilities. If a theory cannot be falsified, there's a good chance it's true. But a good scientist will never claim his theory cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, it's not a scientific theory. How can you be certain that there will not be a day when we find clear indications God, indeed, does exist? If you truly are certain about that, then this is your *belief*. Aside from atheism, by the way, there's agnosticism, which is the belief that we don't know for *certain* if there is a god or not. I think that is much less a faith than atheism. | Atheism and science are distinct. One can be an atheist and not believe science. One can believe science and not be an atheist. Aside from that, I argue science is based on faith. It's a very small amount of faith. Compared to religious folks it's not so much a leap as one very small step. David Hume reasoned that there exists a problem with inductive reasoning and that is one cannot trust that induction works without believing in both the principle of uniformity of nature and causality. How can one be sure that if A yields B a billion times in a row that A yields B the billion and 1th time? Since induction is not rational in the same way deduction is, you can't be rationally. That's faith too. | 0 | 48 | 2.2 |
x2tftg | changemyview_test | 0.72 | CMV: Senior citizens should recieve even more love from people in Western culture Let me start with this: This is by no means a "end all be all" situation, every older person is a case by case basis. However, this is an issue I have with our general culture (mainly the US) that I think needs to be addressed. For decades we have mocked the idea of old people in all types of media, decided older features are "ugly" and generally cast them aside. The general public seems indifferent at best to seniors to downright abusive. Greedy for their money in wills, willing to target their homes for robbery- even outright inciting violence against seniors. From The Simpson's Grandpa Abe to Family Guy's Herbert, we also end up treating them as creepy or just a drag to listen to (not to knock those shows, I love em myself). I think we need to treat older people with more respect, because after all they were once our age. They once ran marathons, fought wars... They have so many stories to share and HISTORY to contribute. To treat them as second class is downright awful. I'm not arguing every old person is a saint, but I can't get over that someone as sweet as my own great grandma is the target of harassment and scams. That she's seen as ugly just for being 83. We're so eager to cut their programs and go "Cut grandpa's life support, he's not gonna live long anyways". | imlspos | imln6nm | 1,661,997,053 | 1,661,994,629 | 44 | 14 | My grandfather is a pretty terrible dude whose primary point of respect is 'he's old'. That's been the party line I've heard my entire life. First it was "oh just ignore that, he's 70!", all the way through his 100th birthday a few months ago. Props to him, he's old, and in decent shape and mental fitness for a 100 yo man. But he's an asshole. My deceased grandparents include a drunk who abused his wife, who abused her kids. My living grandfathers wife died when I was about 16, and she was educated, philanthropic, and witty, but also classist and approximately as racist as a lot of folk from her time. Older people who earn the respect by being good people, who support and cultivate newer generations, they're rarities and wonderful. They, like any other good person, are a blast to be around, and deserve our respect and care. But this notion that old folk deserve respect simply because they're old folk? Nah. Pass. | >outright inciting violence against seniors. Example? | 1 | 2,424 | 3.142857 |
75slgt | changemyview_test | 0.91 | CMV: Psilocybin Mushrooms should be legal in the United States (over age 18) I have never done any recreational or illegal drugs before. Never smoked or drank alcohol. I've been ignorantly taught when growing up that all drugs are bad and will make you go insane and ruin your life. And yet I do not understand why psilocybin mushrooms are illegal and why they are a Schedule 1 drug. I mean, seriously, what idiot thinks mushrooms are more dangerous than Heroin or Meth or Cocaine or whatever? I do recognize that mushrooms can have negative effects if misused and need to be respected, but that is the same for alcohol, nicotine/cigarettes, and weed. So, why are mushrooms illegal and why should they continue to be? | do8o97d | do8t642 | 1,507,763,396 | 1,507,769,285 | 23 | 43 | Mushrooms as you said is a schedule 1 drug. Once it became schedule 1 all research is cut and we no longer study the effects of it. First step would to do more research to find the full effects and better understand them. But the problem is they are seen as schedule 1 and once it is, it's very hard to take that title away and convince people there's a purpose to research it. And the only reason I see why we need to research it to make it legal is because people are raised ignorant to it and scared of it. people will need hard proof to reeducate them to allow it to be legal | I would only suggest that other mild to moderately harmful drugs like marijuana, LSD, and MDMA should also be legal. They are all less dangerous than alcohol according to this study. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/432675368_9b1dd6e250_o.png | 0 | 5,889 | 1.869565 |
7xdpo8 | changemyview_test | 0.72 | CMV: I think it is ridiculous that people and the media throw a fit when illegal immigrants are deported. As of late, many different stories have risen about immigrants, some of which have been in the United States a long time, are being deported. I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE. Immigrating to the United States illegally is obviously a crime. Crimes have punishments/courses of actions that are clearly presented in laws. Deportation is often the punishment for illegal immigration. People seem to think that because an illegal immigrant has been in the United States for many years, that them being deported is wrong. If it was a bank robber who was caught 10 years after the fact no one would be upset that he faces his punishment. So I don’t think people should be upset when illegal immigrants are deported regardless of how long they have been here. Note: I realize that some people are brought here as children. That makes things more complicated since that is not really their fault that they were brought here. It is their parents or guardians that brought them here illegally. However, it is not the United States government’s fault that they were brought here illegally by someone and no blame or anger should be directed at the government and ICE agents for carrying out the law regardless if previous administrations enforced the law or not. Maybe I am not seeing people’s issue with the situation. It could be that they are saddened that someone has to uproot their life, but if we look at my example of the bank robber, is he/she not also being uprooted from their life? | du7iukd | du7l6nr | 1,518,567,348 | 1,518,569,957 | 35 | 59 | There's a lot of misconceptions here. Hopefully you're the kind of person who believes the things he does for the reasons he states and upon learning that they aren't true will change his view. Otherwise, why say them right? > Immigrating to the US illegally is obviously a crime. No it isn't. The correct term is "undocumented" not illegal for a reason. That's not propaganda. "Illegal" is. It's literally not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Most undocumented immigrants overstayed visas. That's a civil offense like having an expired license. That wouldn't make you a "criminal". Even illegally crossing is only a misdemeanor. It's intentionally misleading to call them "illegals". For the vast majority of the history of immigration into the US, there was never any kind of documentation. Documented vs undocumented is a relatively new issue. > If it was a bank robber caught 10 years later no one would be upset about his punishment coming. I doubt you care, but actually the statute of limitations on larceny, robbery, and felony larceny are all under 10 years. There is a reason for a statute of limitations and it's insane that a civil crime or misdemeanor would outrank felonies. It's just the dumbest use of resources. > Maybe I'm not seeing the other side. This is correct. The problem people have with ICE raiding police holding cells has nothing to do with two (incorrect) assumptions you've argued. Here's the perverse thing about it: ICE is asking local police to enforce federal laws with local (state) resources and money. It's a states rights issue to force local officers to sacrifice their neighborhood priorities and human asset relationships for federal priorities that the local taxpayers don't want. It's theft of resources. The victim is the state and local police department. It's kinda like quartering federal soldiers. Pay for your own damn houses. | > I read an article today about a man who called the police for help. Afterward, he was handed over to ICE. I'm going to focus on this specific example, as the other commenters are taking a more broad approach. Regardless of if you think we should do a more active job deporting immigrants, this is a particularly bad way to do it. By setting precident that you can not get any help without likely being deported, you are forcing these illegal immigrants to turn to alternative ways to resolve conflict. Maybe they'll take the law into their own hand. Maybe they still need help, so they reach out to a local gang. This goes further in that sometimes, law enforcement needs *their* help. If the only witness of a crime refuses to come forward because they know they'll get deported, you're just impeding our justice system and hurting everyone *but* the immigrant. | 0 | 2,609 | 1.685714 |
1kc07r | changemyview_test | 0.81 | I think that people who complain about working in an office don't realize how lucky they are. CMV. So here's some background. I'm 21 years old. I'm now working in my sixth summer job. I spent 3 summers working at a summer camp as a counsellor and activity specialist. While i did enjoy these jobs,they were also very exhausting as I pretty much had to keep a rambunctious group of children entertained all day, as well as making sure that they didn't kill themselves or each other. I made under mimimum wage during these summers, making as little as $500 for an entire summer's work during my first summer working at a camp. I then spent another 2 summers doing physical labour, mowing lawns and gardening for one summer, and working in a patio furniture store's warehouse for another. These jobs were also very exhausting due to heavy lifting, assembling confusing patio furniture, working outside during one of my hometown's hottest summers on record, and dealing with shitty customers. I made minimum wage one summer ($10.25/hour) and slightly above minimum wage ($11/hour) for the other. This summer, I'm working in an office for the first time. While the work can be boring and tedious at times it is mostly interesting, and perfectly suffices in passing the time. I've also been praised by my boss for the speed and efficiency in which I complete the tasks assigned to me. This is despite the fact that I spend about 35-40% of the day browsing reddit on my phone. On top of that, I'm now making more than twice the amount of money I made working physical labour. To sum it all up, I'm making double the money, to comfortably do about half the work (which is much easier anyway) I was doing before. This has led me to believe that many people who work in offices don't appreciate how much easier their lives are in comparison to those who make a living out of doing physical labour, child care, education etc. Am I wrong for thinking this? Change my view/ | cbnew5u | cbnfeo2 | 1,376,463,626 | 1,376,466,590 | 10 | 21 | What exactly is *easier* about working in an office job? You know that not all office jobs are the same, right? And that there's usually hierarchies and office politics in office environments? From a different point of view, I personally HATE sitting down all day. I work in an office, in quite a stressful and challenging role, and being based at a desk for 9+ hours a day is NOT fun and my body hates me for it. I try to be as active as possible in the office (getting up to make a cup of tea, get a drink, get up and walk around whenever I can) but for the most part, I need to sit at a computer and work. This has lead to back and neck problems and I'm sure I'm not alone in that department. I would much prefer to be more physically active during the day but unfortunately my 'office' job doesn't allow that. By the way, from the sounds of things, if it's your *first* office job and you're on your phone most of the time, then you're hardly in a position to comment on whether everyone else's life is easier, because you're at the bottom of the pile so to speak with a relatively minimal or easy workload in comparison to those above you, and I'm sure the CEO of your company or the managing director, anyone else in senior management in fact, wouldn't think they have it 'easier' than physical labourers when they're working 60+ hour weeks. | People like to feel they are accomplishing something. Often office jobs are often pointless and do nothing. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100835261 That's been my experience talking to my friends. The ones who really hate office jobs feel that they are doing nothing important and they are just wasting their time. Your office is better, since speed and efficiency (and goal accomplishment) are actually important. | 0 | 2,964 | 2.1 |
mcox9e | changemyview_test | 0.59 | CMV: Pro gun people can be more annoying than the SJW's they complain about "COME AND TAKE IT!" "DON'T TREAD ON ME!" "EVERY GUN LAW IS AN INFRINGEMENT!" "SCREW THE ATF!" "DRILL THAT THIRD HOLE!" These gems and many more seem to be staples of the pro gun community and more. Oh yeah, and it seems like a bunch of people in it fetishize being raided by the ATF and having a standoff where they can see how many ATF agents they can kill before they die in a blaze of glory because "THEY'RE COMIN FOR MUH GUNS" However, I'm sure most of them would just capitulate and give up their guns if the ATF actually came to their door. They love making a fuss about any potential gun control law but they mainly complain about it on Facebook and don't do much else. They don't propose gun legislation themselves that doesn't expand their right to own guns. TL;DR Pro gun people are usually all talk and no action | gs5i7u6 | gs5pzsz | 1,616,665,276 | 1,616,671,885 | 5 | 7 | There are extremes in every camp. | People "making a fuss" over having their property stolen from them by the government under threat of prison time or death? Imagine that... | 0 | 6,609 | 1.4 |
dwyoyx | changemyview_test | 0.73 | CMV: Disney/Pixar's "Cars" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best animated films of all time. Disney/Pixar's "Cars" movies are severly under-appreciated works of genius and deserve a spot at the top amongst the best Animated films of all time. The Cars Films are works of pure genius. Lightning, Mater, Doc, Sally and even the lesser characters are all amazing characters and we're perfectly cast. The stories are fantastic as well embracing all the feels. I LMAO, and tear up everytime I watch these movies. The visuals are great, the animation is on par with other top Pixar/Animated films and still holds up after all these years. The backdrop, setting and score are also amazing. I can literally find no reason that these films are constantly at the bottom of every Disney/Pixar list. In fact, I think the cars movies are overall better than movies like Ratatouille, Coco or even Monsters University that hold higher positions thank Cars. The only reason I can imagine that they're not is because people mistakenly think it's Pixer's version of NASCAR. I think that the Cars movies should be regarded as classic works of genus up there with Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc. Top five at lest. | f7n4nj5 | f7mvdlk | 1,573,884,127 | 1,573,874,908 | 18 | 5 | So I don't remember where I saw this, probably some video essay uploaded by some film studies undergrad on YouTube that popped into my feed, but when talking about Pixar, most of their films involving non-human characters, their non-humaness actually influences the characters and the story. Could you make all the characters human and tell the same story? Toy story, no. A bug's life, no. Monsters Inc, no. Ratatouille, no. Finding Nemo, no. Wall-e, no. Cars, yes. If the story was about a racecar driver getting stuck in some town, you could pretty much tell the same story with human characters, and it would actually make a lot more sense. It requires a level of suspension of disbelief that isn't really required in any other Pixar franchise. Who built the cars, where did their infrastructure come from, how do they do all this stuff with no hands, was lightning McQueen built a racecar or did he turn into one, how does romance work between cars? Every other Pixar movie seems to have a much more grounded premise. The toys in your bedroom are alive and want to be played with, the monsters in your closet need your scream energy, there are ants in an epic struggle against grasshoppers, here is a rat that aspires to be a chef. Etc. Cars? Ehh, it feels more like, "we need to produce another movie franchise with a marketable toy line like Toy Story." And I think more cynical critics and adult audiences understand that's what's happening. Ive only watched the first Cars (numerous times because I also have a young son), but none of the others (they aren't on Netflix where I live.), And I really liked it. I thought the story was good, the visuals were great, and it had nice character development. As far as character list, I liked lightning and doc, Sally was... fine but a bit of a cookie cutter. Mater is ok for comic relief. The 2 Italian cars were pretty good. I also liked mac. The other townspeople are mostly forgetable. Pixar has made more memorable bit characters in other movies. Finding Nemo had a bunch, the sharks, the turtles, the tank fish, the schoolmates. | Cars was good but it just wasn’t as good as other Pixar films. It’s difficult to rank such good films so I think subjectivity plays into it. Car’s storyline was good but just less relatable then the other movies and just less original. Personified machines are also just not that original, after all we’ve all seen Thomas the train and the idea just doesn’t much magic for most people. Most audiences have never seen anything like Coco, it was exposure to a new culture and just so whimsical but familiar and heartfelt because of the family bonds centric storyline . Toy story made a suggestion that we’ve all thought of at one point and showed what it might look like so the concept of it is really intriguing and then it also had a great story. | 1 | 9,219 | 3.6 |
3ju7qq | changemyview_test | 0.84 | CMV: Ethics/Philosophy should be considered as important of an elective as Fine Arts or Physical Education etc. in high school Schools around the world obviously have varying systems, but by the time students reach high school, they usually have some degree of freedom over what classes they may take. The context of this CMV is in high schools because they often need to make decisions on what kind of elective courses to offer, if any at all. Classes that are considered electives will often be optional to take at most schools, or if are required, have less hours of classtime when compared to more 'core' classes such as math, or English/native language. As a result, people will usually select electives that best fit their interests and whatever they need for graduation, or whatever they consider to be an easy course. There are other reasons, but I think those three are the major ones. When I say ethics/philosophy, I do not mean in the sense of pushing religious dogma or nihilism or any one specific set of beliefs, but a more broad survey-type course. I think that it's valuable to be able to examine one set of ideologies or philosophies in detail, but have trouble thinking of a practical means to keep them objective right now. With this is mind, this is why I believe that Ethics/Philosophy type courses should be as consistently available in high schools as in other electives: They offer a way of understanding the world in a time where the mind is still developing and beginning to struggle with existential questions, and also allow for students to make better decisions in their lives. When comparing these types of courses to others, such as music, art, or physical education, it is clear that many of these don't have much immediate practical value. I would actually say that the ability to gain a more broad worldview and at least a basic formation of some sort of internal moral code could be more valuable in the present day than being able to run quickly, although there are benefits to both. In many instances, having such an exposure would be of large benefit to people. In terms of practicality, I think that designing a course tailored for high school students is challenging, but not impossibly difficult. Books tailored for teenagers have been written in this genre (Sophie's World comes to mind), and connections can be drawn from text/concepts to the real world. Finding teachers to teach such a subject competently probably wouldn't be hard, either. Many teachers in the general 'humanities' field have some background in this, and I would guess that a decent number of them would be interested and willing to share this interest with others. Compared to other electives, which may require money for instruments, or art supplies or similar things, it's not really that expensive, either. One danger is that this kind of course can be taught poorly, and that some of the effectiveness of it may be lost on students. However, we take this risk with subjects such as math all the time, with students oftentimes turned away because of a teacher that is unable to clearly explain subjects. Even if the precedents in this are ignored, I think that simple exposure, even if incomplete, will still bring more benefits than harm. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!* | cuslgqu | cusej11 | 1,441,558,963 | 1,441,541,968 | 5 | 2 | I had a great philosophy education in high school, *through other classes*. Algebra laid down a few foundational concepts in logic, and geometry cemented a lot of those concepts with formal proofs and analogies to how "real world" logic works. Then in the post- geometry math courses, we used algebraic proofs to establish how different relationships arise between numbers and formulas. The point of this coursework was to establish the foundations for higher level math, but for those of us who didn't go much further in math, it laid down a lot of foundational skills in logic and reasoning (and by extension, common fallacies and mistakes in reasoning). Contemporaneously with that math education, our science education started relying more on math (and the attendant logical problem solving skills). How do we tie together the known formulas and definitions to figure out the unknowns starts teaching the use of logic as a "toolbox" for solving problems. I also took a programming class in high school, which relied heavily on an assumption that we had strong logic skills. Then, the rhetoric and persuasion type courses start building up practice in practical use of logic in non-technical disciplines. Literature coursework starts exploring a lot of philosophical concepts, especially ethics, truth, fairness, etc. Reading works from different religious traditions really started to demonstrate the importance of certain philosophical underpinnings in different cultures. We get to thinking about these things before even taking a formal philosophy course. By the time I took a formal philosophy course, I realized that it was just a condensed, focused version of things I had already learned in high school. I ended up majoring in philosophy, but I think that my high school education was already pretty strong in philosophy, at least as much as one could expect for students of high school age and experience. In fact, one of the most notoriously difficult sophomore courses in my major, symbolic logic, was made easier from my high school math experience. So adding a dedicated philosophy course at the high school level wouldn't add much, in my opinion. We should bolster the "core" classes to highlight philosophical concepts, sure, but the best high school curricula already expose students to a solid philosophical education. | >With this is mind, this is why I believe that Ethics/Philosophy type courses should be as consistently available in high schools as in other electives: They offer a way of understanding the world in a time where the mind is still developing and beginning to struggle with existential questions, and also allow for students to make better decisions in their lives. You dismiss "English/native language classes" too easily. English isn't just grammar and writing. There's lots of literature in English, which is used to teach students different skills on different levels. In addition to improving comprehension, vocabulary, speed etc., reading and analyzing a book or story helps develop critical thinking skills, as well as tease out the underlying concepts/message that the work is attempting to send, as well as historical understanding of that point in time (For example, Huck Finn regarding race, law and ethics/morality in 19th Century America). It's important to remember that analytical/critical thinking skills are developed over time. By 8th grade we're conditioned to believe that the text is the undisputed truth and learn the material accordingly, in high school that trend mostly continues but now we're introduced to the idea of perspective. Two articles about the same topic are presented next to each other, and we see more "unreliable narrators" in literature. This is an important and crucial step that needs to be taken before students can jump into philosophy, considering the ambiguity and flaws that /u/likeascientist outlined. | 1 | 16,995 | 2.5 |
tk4wti | changemyview_test | 0.66 | CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn’t be annoyed. With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking. I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn’t as sturdy, I’m worried if it didn’t work properly someone is going to barge in. There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don’t hear anything, that’s when you try the door. There’s no reason someone shouldn’t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone. | i1o6r2a | i1o41we | 1,647,962,883 | 1,647,961,809 | 76 | 21 | I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That’s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce “I’m shitting in here!” It’s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don’t have to. | I mean, it comes down to an assumption that whoever's in there would've locked up. They aren't jiggling doors to try and catch someone with their pants down. There's always the chance that whoever it is has poor hearing and knows they wouldn't hear an "Occupied!" Or they were operating on autopilot and forgot to knock. Or they didn't realize it was a single-room restroom and thought they were entering a multi-stall one. I find in general that when I get pissed off about stuff like this it has more to do with my mental state than the rudeness of people around me. Think of it as an exercise in extending patience and empathy to strangers. Staying zen when someone jiggles the handle will build that muscle so you can have patience when you need it, like when dealing with kids or driving in New York. | 1 | 1,074 | 3.619048 |
7zu6h2 | changemyview_test | 0.72 | CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie: 1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to "yield" or be killed is the loser of the fight. In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!* | duqvwel | duqwqul | 1,519,450,525 | 1,519,451,923 | 3 | 46 | Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king. Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he? | The film establishes that the one competitor wins the ritual combat when the other either dies or surrenders. T'Challa did neither. That's why when T'Challa returns, he tells Killmonger the ritual combat is not over, since he's not dead. There's not a lot he can do about the fact that Killmonger refuses to continue the challenge. Since Killmonger never technically defeats T'Challa per the rules of ritual combat, he's never the rightful king. | 0 | 1,398 | 15.333333 |
1jocwx | changemyview_test | 0.89 | I think the 'culture' around alcohol is extremely toxic and needs to be fixed. CMV To start of, I realize how difficult of an issue this is. Banning alcohol flat-out would only cause problems and probably more than I know of, but my opinion is that the 'culture' we have built around alcohol in western society (I'm Western European, if anyone's interested) is very toxic to our every day life and especially children growing up. My background preceding this view is, I think, important. So I'll start of with that. I grew up in a small village where alcohol and straight alcoholism is not treated as much of a big deal. In fact, people fail to recognize alcholism and problem-drinkers so extremely much that my own mother has grown up into extreme alcoholism without ever getting the help she has been needing for over at least 40 years. It has affected both herself and those close to her, including me. She has recently confessed to me that her problem had been going on for this long and that the people around her in her youth (my guess would be early 20's) thought her attitude towards alcohol was cool. This is not rare. Especially villages have the risk of getting into extreme alcoholism and though I know I live in one of the worst places when it come to this issue (I have actually looked at statistics), I think it does highlight in a hyperbolic way how toxic the culture we live in can be to many people. Having grown up with an alcoholic has made me very sensitive to the signs of alcoholism and I recognize it a lot easier than most. My offers of help would be dismissed and ridiculed. People who don't drink are called 'straight-edge', but not in a good way. I have made my own conscious decision to not drink, because doing so would be triggering to me. I couldn't hang around people who drink or casually go to a party without it being forced on me. I have had people get legitimately angry at me for not drinking. I 'spoil the fun', I'm prude and I'm boring. I am apparently not allowed to have fun without getting drunk. I think every one of you at least knows someone who has a problem with alcohol and maybe even had it themselves. In how many of those cases did these people have to get into an accident, have to go through something horrible before they would get help? In my opinion, the way we glorify alcohol in the media contributes to how hard it is for these people to get help. Commercials for alcohol are full of objectification of women and machismo. They target people who naively buy into the image of the charming man who is succesful with women. Drinking away problems is almost encouraged in some cases. I am not completely against any positive portrayal of alcohol, but I think there's a great lack of nuance. Having said all that, I am still open to opposing views and hope to see if anyone has any information I'm missing that might get me to change my view. | cbgsya7 | cbgp3g7 | 1,375,639,055 | 1,375,624,762 | 33 | 31 | Having worked in the substance abuse prevention field with remote villages in the past, I'd say that the bigger problem is village life, not alcohol glorification. I think you're focusing your efforts in the wrong place. Not so long ago, villages needed everyone to contribute in order for the village to survive. Now, that's not the case and there's nothing for most people to do. I've been to places where anything in an aerosol can had to be kept behind the counter at the store and not sold to minors because kids were so desperate for an escape that they'd huff whatever they could get their hands on. Alcohol is just another escape, just like any other drug. You're never going to be able to change how alcohol is portrayed in popular culture, so you need to counteract it with messages that it isn't necessary or good for you. More importantly, though, you need to find something for people to do so they don't feel the need to turn to substance use in the first place. | There is a reason alcohol is glorified, it is incredibly fun. Alcohol is the only legal drug that gives people any sort of altered state. Think about this for a second; the easiest way people can feel anything but a sober state of consciousness without breaking the law, is consuming alcohol... which is a ridiculous expectation to put on an animal that has been altering its state of consciousness for almost the entirety of our existence through a variety of different drugs, all of which are now illegal to consume. It is inherent for some people. Alcohol is the last of the legal drug; this fact alone is enough to encourage substance abuse. Also, the major problem with your argument is it revolves entirely around problem drinkers, which is an incredibly shallow way to form a balanced opinion. For anything there is a group of people that will not mix well with whatever this is. This includes, but is not limited to: alcohol, cheeseburgers, children, guns, cars and credit cards - for every one of those magnificent things there is a fairly sizable chunk of people who just for some reason or another cannot deal with it; so we have alcoholics, obesity, domestic abusers, murderers, felons and economy crashers. Shit. But there are also a huge majority who *can* be responsible with whatever it is, and those people get great pleasure out of it in return. So we allow the good with the bad, after all there is unquestionably more good in those cases. This is great news, because we want to have as many choices as we can so we can feel like a 'free' human. We like choices, it makes us feel like we are in charge of our own lives. Drinking is one of these choices, and for a lot of us (myself included) we can binge drink without it affecting our lives in a negative way. For some, it is incredibly fun and all sorts of different people experience different results with it. It gives the little man in your head a break from the controls for a while, and in steps his ugly cousin Boris who has only stumps where his fingers should be and he just starts hammering buttons; he has more confidence, wants to party, wants to dance to shit music, more outgoing, wants to go pick up, wants to crank the dial, wants to go on stage, wants to be the centre of attention, and just be in the company of friends while on the same wild fucked up journey. So yes, when people say to you 'it spoils the fun' that you don't drink, they actually feel that way - I can sometimes feel that way. Don't get me wrong, I can have a good time with sober people while sober, and I have an excellent time with drunk people while drunk. If I am sober, drunk people can annoy me, and if I am drunk sober people annoy me. The two states just do not mix that well. So when you come along to whatever the event is and everyone is drinking but you, it takes the tone of the event down, like a herd that moves only as fast as the slowest buffalo. This peer pressure isn't just to make you drink the poisonous fire water, this is to try and get you on the same journey as everyone else so you can experience the same altered state together. Sober people and drunk people simply cannot experience the same thing. Sober people are dropping anchors when everyone else wants to set sail. | 1 | 14,293 | 1.064516 |
pz9qm4 | changemyview_test | 0.83 | CMV: Hunting a game animal and not eating the meat is merely a waste of resources, not an unethical act as compared to hunting & eating for non-survival reasons. I will try and give full context here. I am a semi-hippie farmer/orchardist. I am mostly vegetarian but I do crave meat especially after strenuous exertion. The deer population in my area is very high and I have had my crops wrecked many times. I have some fencing and other methods but to lower the pressure I hunt deer. I personally hate waste of any kind, I compost apple cores, turn off lights, eat leftovers scrupulously, etc. I also carefully butcher the deer, even saving the heart & kidneys for meals. I have heard from many people in my life, and even saw it on Reddit the other evening (sparking this thread), "It's fine as long as you eat the meat." Now I agree that is is a shame to waste food, but I know some people just toss leftover beefsteaks after a cookout. I have never heard of anyone saying that makes them unethical in the animal cruelty sense. Only in a "don't waste food" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered. I am sure someone will bring up those big game hunters that Reddit seems to despise, that complicates things a bit as lion is not considered a good meat. My view is more based on how people talk to me about hunting indigenous animals. | hf11zt2 | hf04mfi | 1,633,127,527 | 1,633,112,199 | 7 | 5 | >Only in a "don't waste food" sense. I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered. People who advocate animal ethics consider both cases to be unethical. The "as long as you eat the meat" thing is generally a method of placating cognitive dissonance surrounding the killing of animals. People don't often view wasting burgers as an animal ethics thing because they do everything they can to not make the connection between their food and an animal being killed. Based on what you said, you might make a claim that it's necessary to kill the animals to protect your crops, I'm just explaining why I think the contradiction exists. Honestly I'm a little baffled that your response to the contradiction is that both things are okay. Why isn't your view that wasting burgers is related to animal ethics? | > I can think of no reason why Sgt. Spatula killing a deer and letting it rot is in any way worse than someone throwing out four dozen leftover burgers because they can't be bothered. I think the act is similar, but the result and intention is i different. A waste of resources is a waste of resources. However buying something at a store with the INTENT of never consuming it, is different than simply forgetting, or not properly utilizing it. Further, in the practicality aspect. A whole animal is a hell of a lot more than a few burgers. As an analogy: Is it just as unethical to go subconsciously 5MPH over the speed limit as it is to intentionally drag race 50MPH over the speed limit? | 1 | 15,328 | 1.4 |
m92m10 | changemyview_test | 0.72 | cmv: Lolicon is a FORM of pedophilia Yes, it is. First of all we will just ignore their "real" ages, cuz sexual arousal is about body and physical appearence. So an underage elementary school girl, who acts like a child, is a child no matter if she is 1 billion years old . I see people on Internet accusing me of calling them pedophiles, **NO**. I'm not calling you a pedophile for getting sexually aroused from a drawing. **BUT YOU ARE**, a pedophile **OF A DRAWING.** Even if you think pedophilia of drawings is not bad, it is. Pedophilia is not just about raping kids, IF YOU ARE AROUSED BY THEM, YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE. If you are just **aroused** by a drawing of an **underage**, **prepubescent** girl than you are still a pedophile, but a pedophile **of a drawing.** Btw, I'm not insulting people and etc. I'm just taking reference from Dictionary of Cambridge for meaning of pedophilia: **someone who is** **sexually** **in** **children.** So I AM civil. Sources: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/tr/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk/ingilizce/paedophile , https://definition.org/define/lolicon/ ,https://www.wordnik.com/words/lolicon#:\~:text=noun%20uncountable%2C%20anime%20The%20sexual,young%2C%20generally%20prepubescent%20%2C%20girls , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon Bonus: and Lolicon aka ロリコン *(romanized: Rorikon)* translates to "pedophilia", "sexual attraction to children". Proof: https://imgur.com/qaiMUuE | grknz9s | grkmuxi | 1,616,230,989 | 1,616,229,733 | 25 | 5 | No one's even trying to change your view, isn't that against the rules? How about this: Animr characters aren't human. You may claim they posess thr characteristics of prebubescant children, but actually the posess the characteristics of aliens. Head and eyes much bigger than any human child, nose and mouth much smaller, legs too long, feet too small and depending on style, hands too big or too small. So while the Japanese might call that pedophile, because the characters in universe are children, they look nothing like actual human children. | Would you consider a man who has no attraction towards other men but finds an extremely stylised drawing of a man hot "gay for drawings"? This is not a gotcha, more of a probe. If your answer is "yes," then as wack as I find your view, it's internally consistent and nothing but correction en masse will convince you that that's not how the term works. Being only one man, nothing I alone can do is en masse so I won't be getting any deltas. If your answer is "no" then I've identified an inconsistency in your position which must be reconciled. Similarly, would you consider someone who got their rocks off to s/m stuff a masochist even if they'd never engage in it in real life? Their claim would be "I'm not aroused by X, I can be aroused by fictitious depictions of X". In this case though, the X would be "pain". The view you've put forward would have those people labelled "masochists for videos" or some such. | 1 | 1,256 | 5 |
8thhpl | changemyview_test | 0.7 | CMV: Real diversity is the acceptance of anyone, the current debate on diversity is demonstrative of the fact that, overall, we still judge everyone based on what is observable just by looking at them, our goals of diversity are fake, it's just to make things 'look' different. Recently when that woman from Apple resigned after saying that 12 white men in a room could be diverse because of their experiences I had a sudden epiphany for what may be wrong with conversations on diversity these days. To me, the central issue is that our understanding of diversity is only 'observable' diversity. I've lived and worked in many different cities, especially those with diverse populations such as Singapore, Doha, New York and London. One thing I've learned is to never assume anything about anyone. That blonde haired blue-eyed guy might be muslim, that calm and married with 3 kids desi lady might ride motorbikes lit on fire on the weekend (true story) - etc. Stereotypes might come from a basis of experience, but I've experienced so many exceptions that mine are a little bit more loosely held than they used to be. My point is that if our only understanding of diversity is based on what can be initially observed about someone, then what the hell are we really talking about? This person has X colored skin, this person has Y disability, this person has Z political perspective or W religion as seen by an artifact on their body? What the heck? Aren't we better than that? I saw a Japanese woman with a fish bracelet the other day and I thought it was a Jesus fish, but she corrected me and said "oh I just thought it was a cute fish." I think that this entire debate on diversity just shows how overall divided we still are, if people really understood diversity, they would stop talking about what people look like and focus on just ensuring and equal opportunity of success for everyone and combat destructive groups of any kind, regardless of their target. From my experience, you could dream up the most incredibly diverse board of directors, representing somehow through mixed blood every minority race, religion, disability and personal diet and if they all have the same tactics in common, you'll have a LESS diverse output of strategy from that executive suite. Real diversity is accepting everyone, making things more colorful/differently shaped is an attempt at a shortcut that ultimately doesn't make sense. I look forward to being proved utterly wrong and changing my mind, because if I'm right in my view, I don't see much hope for change. | e17iys1 | e17j9dh | 1,529,845,707 | 1,529,846,135 | 3 | 16 | So, first of all, why don’t you think you’ll change your view? That’s a preconception that can really hold you back. You should analyse the core of your views and the thinking behind it the same way you do opposing ones. Don’t give your view any extra logic points because you came up with it. Onto the point: When it comes to certian careers it is important that diversity is a thing. This is to get different views and it helps companies watch over themselves. For example, this is important in tv show and movie casting. Say, you are a casting director for a big movie. The casting notes don’t mention anything about race. Race is not an important feature for this movie. Let’s say you are white. You will have a (somewhat) natural bias to white people. Because when you read the characters the imaginary person you build in your head will almost always resemble people you know closest. Which is usually yourself and friends and family. This can lean to you choosing a white actor because of the image your thought in your head not because of merit. This isn’t because the casting director is racist. And this doesn’t mean all white actors are picked because of white casting directors. It is a natural psychlogical thing. So, a company might want to ensure that black actors aren’t being UNINTENTIONALLY discriminated agaisnt in the hiring process. They want every actor to be screened equally. So they want a black casting director as well to work alongside the white one. This is relevant for marketting, writing, and similar careers to ensure there is no unintentional biases. With google it is a completly different issue (trust me the issue of women and STEM is never ending). This is another unintentional thing. Let’s say the boss is a man and the underlings are a mix of men and women. Let’s say the underlings all perform the same. The boss gets told by his boss he needs to promote someone. Who does he promote? Well, in all likeliness, it is going to be a male underling. For much the same reasons as the white casting director. With Google having a lot of issues with male superiors (and male underlings) devaluing women and not understanding unique problems towards women it is understandable why a woman wouldn’t feel the most comfortable in a room full of 12 men trying to talk about a unique woman issue or talking about unintentional sexism. Because no one wants to be called racist or sexist. And the casting director and the boss aren’t racists or sexists. They have unintentional biases that it helps to have someone on the other end of that bias to be there to level and question them. This is all about giving people equal opportunities. We can’t ignore unintentional biases because that restricts the equal opportunities. We should know they happen and think of ways around them. And that would be having a casting director with different ethnicities and having the hiring process at a firm be a diverse process. | You're right that diversity of ideas is crucial. But what you're missing is that the way we are perceived by the world ultimately shapes our experiences, and our experiences play a role in the forming of our ideas. Take Bernie Sanders' press secretary Symone Sanders for example. If you put her in a room with 11 white women who also worked on the campaign you're obviously going to find overlap in political beliefs. But by being a black woman, her experiences, and therefore her perspective, will vary in certain ways due to her unique experience. Despite working on the same campaign, the white women would not have experienced the same level of bias and discrimination that Symone did due to her race. And that alone will contribute to the diversity of experience/ideas that she brings to the table despite their shared political beliefs. More info on Symone's experience on the campaign trail: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tamerragriffin/symone-sanders-discusses-racism | 0 | 428 | 5.333333 |
4mx6bc | changemyview_test | 0.63 | CMV: Political correctness is not efficient, productive or healthy In the modern world, we go out of our way to ensure that things like racism, sexism, etc are deterred, and I think that's a positive thing. However, trying to solve the problem with this PC philosophy of language is not helpful and shifts our focus to a much more shallow place. Let's take a very popular real world example: "the N word." I think Louis C.K. kind of has the right idea here (NSFW). For those of you who don't care to watch it, the basic idea is that saying "the N word" is effectively the exact same thing as saying the actual word. Why? Because it should be the intention behind the word, the context of the word that matters, not the word itself. If our intentions are clear, it shouldn't matter the word we use. If the speaker has fulfilled their responsibility of making their intentions clear, then the listener should follow through with their responsibility of interpreting what's said based on those conveyed intentions. A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. No one takes offense because they all understand that nobody is actually being hostile. But, when a friend shows genuine signs of anger and starts throwing around curse words in a genuinely aggressive manner, their friends can interpret them different based on the *context.* Not the word itself, but the *context* and the *intentions* that are being conveyed. In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like "this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're *not allowed* to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. To me, this doesn't solve any kind of problem. If someone has something genuinely offensive to say, they're going to find a way to say it with or without this arbitrary list of "evil words," and isn't that what matters? Shouldn't the focus be more on evil ideas instead of evil words? I think this is a first step in foregoing intelligent discussion and ultimately solves nothing. | d3z6vrz | d3z2951 | 1,465,284,300 | 1,465,273,216 | 23 | 16 | I don't think you're quite aware of what PC is. Political correctness is a movement that began in the 80s-90s to address some of the problems in our common language, and how it was either inaccurate or insulting - or often both! Job titles changed a lot, usually ones with the word 'man' in the title. Mailman = Letter Carrier, for example. This is a necessity from women entering the workforce. Language about race changed from words we (white people) gave other groups to terms they gave themselves. So Indian became Native American and eventually First Nation in Canada. Eskimo became Inuit. And of course, bigoted slurs are just out entirely, which included 'minor' ones like darkie. A bunch of other stuff as well. Retarded, despite being a clinical term, is an insult. Handicapped is not. So let's work with handicapped when referring to people. A trick of political correctness is to find easy insults, and replace them with awkward language. It's not a perfect system, but it has made some huge changes and I'd argue good ones. Now on to a few things you wrote: > A good example of when this philosophy of language actually prevails (at least in many familiar circles) is swearing. Swearing in general is considered offensive, rude and aggressive, yet in a close circle of friends, swearing is often quite common and casual. Let's be clear. Swearing is NOT part of the political correctness bit. Political correctness is really about power. The word fuck is not used by one group to assert dominance over another like the word nigger is. Swearing is fine. Racial slurs have actual real impact on lives. Now in your example above, and I admire the shit out of Louis CK. He *gets* gender and race politics in a lot of ways. But he's also contradicting himself with Louis CK from a few years later. His best quote ever is this: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." So when black people tell me that it's really not cool to say nigger, I fucking don't. When white people tell me it's cool, I don't listen to their opinions because they're not the ones harmed by it. Even the best possible white people like Louis CK. > In PC language philosophy, the intent behind the word becomes much less relevant, as the zeitgeist has determined that some words are inherently evil until they arbitrarily evolve to be less offensive. So based on this, we make up rules like "this word belongs to that culture or that group. You're not allowed to say it. It doesn't matter what the context was or if you were just quoting something or if everyone in the room is fine with it, you're just not allowed. *You're allowed to say whatever the fuck you want.* You're not a victim here under the cruel tyranny of the PC police. Nobody is forcing you to say or not say anything. There are just consequences for your language. And if you go around calling people retards and niggers, you're an asshole and people may remind you of that. I get that you want to talk about how context is everything, so sure. But the *speaker* is part of that context. The reason a black person can get away with saying stuff you can't is because of hundreds of years of white dominance over black people. That word is an assertion of power and a racist word is meaningless when people within that racial group use it. I'm pretty damn uncomfortably writing it here, but decided to not go with the n-word stuff because that's awkward as shit. And it's not like political correctness makes it incapable for us to talk about ideas of race and gender. How could it? We're doing that right now. Political correctness has LOADS of problems, and it is silly how people have to dance around language when talking about that very language. But fuck, I think the trade off is worth it. Speaking of comedians, here's a good bit on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A | i think you're confusing rudeness with PC. Swearing is considered rude or aggressive or symbolizing something specifically "bad." That is on purpose, because we need a means to signify harsh realities, and we need a way to check people who are being rude (ie. parents telling kids not to use the word "shit" even though they don't mind their kids saying "poo" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPSd66HHsc) There is a goal in having this language as part of our dialogue. it's important and necessary, and it's there on purpose. that is entirely different than the issues around PCness. PCness is totally misunderstood by idiots like Donald Trump (or, generally people who complain about people wanting PC language used). The thing with PC language is that those asking for people to be PC are actually just asking for those non-PC people to be ACCURATE. The problem is that half of society is too stupid to recognize the nuance in the language, and they think that asking for nuance is bad, because they don't know that there's a difference in saying two things. a very good example of this is the controversy now about The Donald going after that judge. He is claiming people are trying to force him to be PC, when in reality people just want him to be accurate and realize that by claiming the judge is against him because he wants to build a wall is racist, not un-PC. Trump doesn't realize there is a difference between being of mexican heritage and being a judge and of hating his stupid views. so he thinks it's fine to call the judge "a mexican" and think he will be against him in some stupid unrelated law suit, when really Trump is a racist idiot. you know? am i making sense here? EDIT: Clarity | 1 | 11,084 | 1.4375 |
mecd73 | changemyview_test | 0.8 | CMV: All media outlets should be forced to change to not for profit organisations. I truly believe the primary function of media outlets should be the spread of information. However, in this modern age news/media companies are so reliant on clicks/views in order to turn a profit that the quality of reporting suffers significantly. Sensational headlines, opinion pieces (often controversial) and a general need need to stand out often results in articles that have no substance. All because the primary goal is actually get you to click and subsequently view an ad. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think that all news should be facts and statistics printed in black and white. I too enjoy ‘feel good’ stories about things that aren’t actually news. I do however think that journalists and media outlets should be held accountable for deliberately misleading people and I think the greatest source of this ‘misinformation’ is ridiculous headlines purely focused on generating traffic. | gsfsin5 | gsg4hzn | 1,616,848,407 | 1,616,852,576 | 6 | 7 | Not for profit ≠ no agenda. | There are quality news reporters, organizations and sources today but the majority of people don’t want that. They want their echo chamber, self-reinforcing news as entertainment. And what do you mean by “media outlets”? Tons of people get their news from Facebook and Twitter. Would they be allowed to stay for profit or not? And how small down do you go? Do independent / freelance journalists or kids starting a podcast need to register as a non-profit? | 0 | 4,169 | 1.166667 |
829eqd | changemyview_test | 0.71 | CMV: It is inconsistent to be in favour of banning Russian-sourced political messages from Reddit, and in favour of the principle net neutrality. The value of the principle of net neutrality is that it preserves the internet as a platform for unrestricted communication between people, via restricting what companies are permitted to do with their property. The only reason to value the principle is if one holds the view that unrestricted communication between people is valuable and that private property rights should be infringed to maintain that value. (It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of censorship here, or whether unrestricted communication is *actually* good.) I'd briefly like to distinguish between valuing net neutrality out of principle and valuing net neutrality out of pragmatism. If people support it merely because they perceive it as positively affecting information that they want to receive or impart, that is support out of pragmatism. If their primary objection is that they are not the people deciding what gets censored, they do not value net neutrality in principle. Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure. Russian-sourced political messaging is a form of communication. Under the principle of net neutrality, it would not be slowed, blocked or restricted by an ISP. Ergo, under the principle of net neutrality, it should not be slowed, blocked or restricted by the Reddit administration. CMV. For the purposes of giving some background so you can present arguments that align with my values: I personally value freedom of information and communication. I dislike systems that allow some people to communicate more than others. I believe that empathy and understanding will do more to quell disharmony than conflict. I have anti-establishment, democratic socialist leanings. | dv8dllq | dv8djvm | 1,520,284,860 | 1,520,284,816 | 27 | 11 | >Reddit is analogous to the internet as a whole, and has all the properties of the internet that make net neutrality worth imposing: Its founding purpose was to provide a medium for individuals to communicate on any topic. Setting up an alternative is onerous, due to difficulty of mustering public support. Private interests own the underlying infrastructure. Reddit does not exert absolute control over the internet, as ISPs do. The barrier to entry for starting a site like reddit is WAY lower than starting a new ISP. If the few telecom companies that control the industry want to start cracking down on (insert thing here), no one that wants internet access can really do much about it without net neutrality. If someone doesn't like what reddit is doing? There are approximately 1.2 billion other places you can go to talk, get advice about your car, get cat pictures, etc. Or you can make your own. | you are mixing 2 different issues. net neutrality is about ISPs not picking and choosing what is on the internet, net neutrality is NOT about private business's websites having open spaces for everyone to have a voice. This is similar to the first amendment. it protects citizens from the government restricting their speech not businesses. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they give a voice to. | 1 | 44 | 2.454545 |
50slbu | changemyview_test | 0.89 | CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption. There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover. I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility. This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!* | d76spub | d76ndgv | 1,472,827,575 | 1,472,818,493 | 256 | 77 | The state should pay the man. Requiring the mom to pay harms the child and it's the states fault for assigning payments to the man without being certain it was his responsibility. If the mom did it maliciously she should be charged and the child placed with family/cps | While I agree that a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a kid that is provably not his - I disagree that the money he already paid into the child should be given back. First off, it's unlikely that the mother and/or the child is going to be in a position to be able to pay back child support payments. Say that they track the biological father down and force *him* to start paying - well now he's just paying the other dad because of a mistake (or even malevolence on the part of the mother) and the child isn't getting anything. Child support is ostensibly about the children. It's not about giving the mother money for having the kid, it's about the cost of raising a child and how we as a society have decided to approach the subject. If you start forcing someone in a situation that is receiving child support to themselves pay some form of child support there's only one person you're actually harming here - the child. So while I agree the man has suffered an injustice no matter the circumstances surrounding this injustice I don't really see a very good option for him getting any sort of payback. I would rather not throw the baby out with the bathwater and harm a child (or children) because we want to balance the scales. Edit: Oh, alright, you want to punish children for having the audacity to be born. I'm out. | 1 | 9,082 | 3.324675 |
ybo55b | changemyview_test | 0.58 | CMV: The “neurophysiological immaturity” justification for student debt relief is flawed. A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments. I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree. As a summary, I argue that ACT/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds. | ithhea3 | ithhey0 | 1,666,548,477 | 1,666,548,484 | 5 | 19 | Yeah that's a pretty weak argument. Sure, a teenager can do math, but math alone doesn't tell the full story on finances. Math can tell you that 300,000 is a big number, but it can't tell you whether this is a reasonable price to pay for a house, or what acceptable mortgage terms on that house will be. The numbers alone are essentially meaningless without context, and it's the adults and institutions around teens that provide that context for them. And the context surrounding student loans was always "yes it seems like a lot of debt, but trust us (the people who are selling you that debt and/or don't know any better themselves) it won't matter because you'll be making a lot of money with your degree". And teens not only lack social literacy (due to young age) but they have just got done with grade school, where we teach them that capitalism is moral and that all they have to do is work hard and they will succeed, not exactly the social context to realize they are being scammed. And obviously, when people say things like "18 year olds should not be expected to make life-long financial decisions", *this* is what they are talking about, not a supposed metal condition that makes teens unable to do basic multiplication, or something | >A common justification for student loan debt forgiveness in the US suggests that 18 year olds have not yet completed neurophysiological brain development and therefore lack the maturity to take on financial commitments. Is it? I have literally never heard or seen this discussed. >I contest this notion on the basis that the majority of students are required to pass standardized testing such as the ACT or SAT, with decent scores, prior to being admitted to high cost universities and colleges. This standardized testing includes a math component. Arguably, demonstrating a certain competency in maths prior to college admission would also cover competency in Googling a compound interest calculator on the internet, and comparing these numbers against average salaries for a chosen degree. Huh? Maturity has 0 to do with math skills. Also, no, the majority are not, though it doesn't matter. >As a summary, I argue that ACT/SAT competency in math as a requirement for college admissions is sufficient moral justification for placing financial burden on 18 year olds. What does this have to do with maturity or late brain development? Seventh graders can do well on the SAT and ACT. Do you think they should be able to sign legal contracts, take out mortgages? | 0 | 7 | 3.8 |
f1vt4z | changemyview_test | 0.78 | CMV: There would be nothing wrong with the apparent 'dark' future, where we all end up hooked up to a system that directly stimulates our brain. "Genuine" existence has no real meaning or value. Everyone seems to think that advancements in technology are great, but that we need to avoid this dystopian future that we're heading towards. They think it would be depressing if no-one interacted in the real world anymore and were simply hooked up to a machine that stimulated our brains, or simulated a virtual existence. Let's assume this is a perfect system that can affect our brain however it chooses, keeping us alive indefinitely (or at least as long as you'd live otherwise). People who I tend to follow/agree with talk about it like this would be a nightmare future we should avoid. ​ My arguments against this: \- Anything you feel is lost by this, you wouldn't feel. If you're seeking feeling some kind of genuine experience, where some suffering is required to reach an overall earned outcome, you would feel this. Your genuinity sensors are firing on overdrive, more than you could experience in the 'real' world. \- All positive experiences can be exaggerated to an otherwise impossible extent. What we think of as the peak happiness/experience could be 0.00001% of what this system makes us feel. No matter what your brains preferred state is. \- In all likelihood, what we consider the 'real' world is probably some form of illusion anyway. Whether it's organic (some form of universe 'creating' this one as an illusion), artificial (a simulation in the mathematical/computational sense), organic-artificial (eg. a 'dream'), or any kind of solipsism. It's definitely another topic to argue why this is the case, but the starting point should be assuming it's one of the many possibilities of a non-reality, rather than blindly assuming it's the one real top-level genuine reality. But that aside, if you believed the world was an illusion in some form, would it not be better to go one level deeper if it meant you felt a more positive experience? \- Any feeling of 'greater good' you have, or feeling/intention about continuing the human race and ensuring our survival, you will feel that but to a more satisfying extent. Or, we could assume that's taken care of by the system we're plugged into. \- This direct brain manipulation could mean that you perceive existence for much longer. Similar to how people report that with certain drugs, their time 'under' feels a lot longer than realtime (I think DMT is an example of this). So not only are you experiencing an infinitely better existence, it can feel infinitely longer. ​ I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the likelihood of this or how feasible it is, and I'm assuming certain 'features' of this system that might be unrealistic. But I'm arguing that if we had this option, hypothetically, it would be a utopian rather than dystopian future. | fh8q6vv | fh8pgo1 | 1,581,365,096 | 1,581,364,658 | 22 | 2 | With everyone plugged into the one perfect system, there's now potentially a single point of failure for the lives of everyone plugged into it. All it takes is one person with the skills and the desire, and they can change the parameters of the simulation, turn everyone's paradise into a torturous hellscape, or just straight up fry everyone's brain. | How long do you think this would last? What would be the point to keep these hooked up people alive and not just kill them to free up resources? | 1 | 438 | 11 |
jgf66s | changemyview_test | 0.91 | CMV: The body positivity movement has long since forgotten about - possibly even never included - men. It goes without saying that the body positivity movement has been beneficial for women of all different shapes and sizes world wide; comprehensive, and intersectional discussions about things from stretch marks, to body hair, to cellulite - and I’m all for these things. Women deserve to be confident in their skin, with their bodies, and free from superficial judgements levied against them by their peers or themselves. Men, on the other hand, have been left in the dust. Look at the top 5 social media accounts that turn up when you search body positivity - they are not only run by women, but usually geared towards women, with some rare exceptions of particularly progressive accounts which may have some representation for Trans and non-binary folks. Men’s bodies are still, in large, viewed in the dichotomy of attractive, or not, with less wiggle room on top traits men tend to be insecure about, whether they can help it (e.g usually physical fitness) or not (e.g previously listed issues for women, height, penis size, baldness, etc.) Of course, I’m not suggesting some incel-mindset “these men don’t deserve love” or “beta versus alpha” propaganda, nor am I suggesting men necessarily require this kind of social support, but the last bit discussion about men’s bodies had to do with the “dad-bod” craze of the mid-2010s, which still focused on large part on a specialized aspect of men, rather than a respect for their body the way the discourse surrounding body-positivity did for women. I speculate these things don’t exist for men in part because of societal expectations on men as to be less concerned with their physical appearance (as not to be perceived as being girly/ supporting traditional gender roles) or show weakness regarding sense of self towards others (also gender roles.) However I also think their exclusion from the origin of body positivity may have inadvertently closed the door in the face of many men willing to open up regarding body identity. With all that being said, I realize men, and women, and people in general cannot be generalized so simply. I know there are men unconcerned and comfortable in their own skin just as much as their are men willing to talk and require the help from communities online and in person, and I know there are many content creators who want to have men at the table to normalize discussions, but by in large, the “movement” of body positivity has long since left men behind. | g9q5bvj | g9q4r7k | 1,603,424,906 | 1,603,424,552 | 77 | 63 | I get why the focus was so much on women to begin with, but from what I've seen, it *is* starting to include men as well. You're starting to see stuff like "the idea that eating disorders and body image issues are women's issues only is especially damaging to men that struggle with them"(actually I first saw this discussed back as early as the late 00s) and "the super-ripped bodybuilder look is not only unrealistic but dangerous to aspire to since that's what they look like when they're nearly passed-out dehydrated and professionals only look like that for a few days a year." Maybe I'm optimistic but these discussions do exist and to me it does feel like male-directed body positivity is starting to get some of the discussion it deserves. | I don't think the body positivity movement left men behind; i think men chose not to participate and so they weren't included. Its not the movement was an organized and cohesive thing with leadership and a clear goal. I don't really know if men generally really are less self conscious, so there's less need for a widesweeping movement among them) or if they just act less self conscious, but I think you have to keep in mind that the body positivity movement was primarily individuals moving in the same direction fairly independently. I don't think there was any thought about excluding people because I don't think there was any collective thought. There was a movement of body positive among women because *they made it happen* - they saw a problem, they felt strongly about it, they addressed it, and then they shared it with other people. It's not that the movement included them and excluded men... It's that *they* were the movement. The movement didn't focus primarily on women - it *was* women. I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly. | 1 | 354 | 1.222222 |
x9obut | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.82 | Explain like I'm five years old: If WhatsApp messages are end to end encrypted, how can WhatsApp show me the code used to encrypt those messages? | inp5tfe | inp909f | 1,662,708,010 | 1,662,710,642 | 3 | 6 | This is one of the great accomplishments of modern cryptography. The ability to show you exactly how the encryption happen. Modern encryption uses one way functions. Mathematical functions that are trivial in one direction, but we know of no way to reverse them in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Since you don't know which random numbers (generating these in an unpredictable way isn't particularly hard) we're used in any specific case(ie. for any given message), you're left with having to reverse an irreversible function to get the "secret"≈key. (Authentication then works through proving that you know that solution, by giving what are essentially "examples/transpositions" without ever passing over the actual solution.) | Public keys and asymmetrical encryption to exchange a symmetrical encryption key. When I want to send you a message, my devices generates 2 encryption keys. A (private) and B (public). Messages (plaintext) encrypted with one key (ciphertext) can only be decrypted by the other key. You cannot decrypt using the same key it was encrypted with. To simplify it we will use a substitution cipher. The most basic of all ciphers/encryption. The “A” key will increment each letter by +1. So D -> E, E -> F, and so on. The “B” key will increment by -1, so P -> O. A Key + BOOBS = CPPCT If we try to decrypt using the A Key A Key + CPPCT = DQQDU = wrong Now the B Key B Key + CPPCT = BOOBS = correct It’s important here to point out that modern encryption algorithms are vastly more complex, and as of now the most complex of them have yet to be broken. The keys generated are complex enough to avoid collision, or when someone else’s key pair might accurately decrypt your message. Ok, now that we have our keys, we always keep one secret and only known to us, the private key. Use encode the message we want to send using our Private key(A). Along with the encrypted ciphertext we will send our Public Key (B) in clear text. Our friend gets the encrypted message CPPCT and our B Key. They decrypt the message, B key + CPPCT = BOOBS. It makes them laugh. They want to send us back LOL. They use their B Key and at the end of the message they include their Public B key, but this time they encrypt their B key with our B Key. Since my Private Key A is the only thing in existence that can decrypt messages encrypted with my public B key, the sender knows I’m the only person that can read the message they sent. I use my Private A key, decrypt their B key they sent, and use that to decrypt their message “LOL”. Now that we have exchanged keys, and have a secure method to exchange messages, anytime I want to send my friend a message, I encrypt it with their Public B key, which ensures only they can decrypt it with their private A key. The problem is asymmetrical encryption like this is slow. Using the secure exchange we setup we mutually agree to start using a symmetrical encryption method and generate a key to use (Key C). Symmetrical encryption uses only one key for both encryption and decryption, and is much faster than asymmetrical. Going forward we can both just use Key C to encrypt our communications. What’s cool is that even if someone got an exact copy of that first message, it doesn’t matter. When my friend returns the message, which includes their public key, the message is encrypted with my public key. Using my Private key is the only way to decrypt the public key they generated and sent for this session. | 0 | 2,632 | 2 |
tfjsy2 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.8 | Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D? | i0wc23s | i0w6ogr | 1,647,445,934 | 1,647,443,760 | 70 | 17 | Video: Doom engine - Limited but still 3D This video shows many of the 3D features (and limitations) that Doom had. * Doom maps can be represented in 2D. People often use that as an argument for it being 2D game. The 2D presentation is possible just because Doom can't do rooms above roooms. The map itself has height (for floor and ceiling) and these do affect gameplay in various ways. * Low ceiling can be used to prevent tall monsters from entering a room that a short monster can enter. Flying enemies can also change their z-position and fly through windows. * Player can run over gaps between plattforms. * Walls can be "jumped" over with help from explosions. * Doom uses simplified collision physics that ignore height. People often claim that this makes the game 2D. But notably not-hitscan projectiles can fly over enemies (they take the height into consideration when checking for collision). * You can't aim up or down, instead you hit enemies regardless of their z-position. The rendering tecnhique used in Doom is fast but looks really bad if you look up or down. The previously mentioned collision checks make it so that you don't need to look up or down to hit things. So you can think of it like a form of autoaim. | The terrain was fully 3D, and the objects (barrels, pick up, enemies) were 2D (think cardboard stand up). As you moved around, objects with a specific facing, like enemies, had several images that would be swapped out. So if you were viewing an imp from it's front, the game would use the front image sets. If you were on its side, it would use the side images. | 1 | 2,174 | 4.117647 |
y92a5q | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.77 | Eli5: How do the brakes on commercial aircraft work during landing | it343vg | it34h5s | 1,666,282,434 | 1,666,282,577 | 10 | 12 | They are actually not that different from the brakes on cars. They are composed of hydraulic cylinders mounted in a caliper which presses some brake pads onto the brake disk when pressure is applied. They even have a regular anti-lock brake system. However the pads and disks are quite massive in order to handle all the heat. They also usually have water cooled brakes, basically water spray onto the brake disks to cool them down. On the other hand an airplane does not use its brakes as often as a car does and the brakes do get a lot of time to cool themselves down each time they are used. For normal landings the brakes are not used that much, most of the braking action is done with the air resistance of the airplane in full flaps and spoilers as well as the engine thrust reversers. However during emergencies the wheel brakes can get red hot and it might damage them a bit, which is better then having to scrap the airplane. | Basically just likea car's brakes. Just upscaled quite a lot. If you don't know how those brakes work, you have a disc that spinns with the wheel and when you want to stop, a pair of non rotating discs/plates press against the spinning disc. There is also usually some kind of airbrake, which is simply a large flat surface that you hold out in the wind. | 0 | 143 | 1.2 |
ww9xv6 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.8 | Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century? | ilkfv5l | ilk7se9 | 1,661,327,654 | 1,661,321,419 | 153 | 42 | The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn’t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren’t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn’t buy in Leningrad. Don’t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished). | By the time of the Cold War there weren’t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival. | 1 | 6,235 | 3.642857 |
ogfrbp | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.68 | Explain like I'm five years old: How did Queen Victoria manage to get her descendents onto the throne of so many European Monarchies? Always wondered how early 20th century Europe managed to get to a point where most of the monarchs were descended from Queen Victoria I | h4iseiw | h4ipnmx | 1,625,780,488 | 1,625,779,191 | 20 | 7 | There's an appropriate joke: "My Daughter wanted me to treat her like a princess so I married her off to a complete stranger twice her age to strengthen my political ties with Poland" There's no stronger bond than family. Monarchs for ages have had arranged marriages for their children so that they can create political alliances. When the Duke next door happens to also be your Son in Law it's a lot more likely you'll be able to count on him for support. Queen Victoria had 9 children (not unusual for the time) and arranged for them to be married into the royal families of Europe in order to create such alliances. This wasn't unique to her, medieval monarchs had been doing that sort of thing since antiquity. Queen Victoria's case wasn't unique but it was unusual because of just how many powerful royal families in Europe she was able to marry her kids into. The British Empire was at its height at the time and other royal families were keen to make alliances with Britain. This kind of backfired though, WW1 in a sense was the war of the cousins. The monarchs of the most powerful nations at the time Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V were all cousins. In fact if you look at their pictures side by side there is a remarkable similarity in appearance between them. The problem became that Nicholas and Wilhelm in particular were incompetent rulers and functionally ended the monarchies in their nations when they were deposed. The great irony of Queen Victoria is that she tried to unite Europe under single family but actually ended up ending the monarchy across Europe within a single generation due to the incompetence of her own Grandchildren. Within a decade the turmoil caused by the war would see those same nations end up under the Communists and Nazi's. | Victoria and Albert had 9 children. Their oldest son, prince Edward, became King after Victoria died. The other children married into other European royal families, because royal families tended to inter-marry at that point in time. The only one of their 9 children not to have any children of their own was Princess Louise. The other 8 children all had plenty of children of their own, so Victoria and Albert had 42 grandchildren. Sprinkled about through the royal families of Europe. | 1 | 1,297 | 2.857143 |
we4oww | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.94 | Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others? | iio8f9f | iimkaw7 | 1,659,463,142 | 1,659,436,629 | 5 | 4 | I’m faceblind which means I have a hard time recognizing faces; mine’s mild but some folks aren’t able to recognise their kids; what this means is I’m often able to place people by their voices before I can match up the face. | As others say, I think the biggest factor isn't the voice itself, but the way that we speak. Speaking speak, accent, choice of words, tone of voice. Add all those together along with having to have the exact same voice, then you'd have difficulty finding 2 people who sound similar enough to confuse them. | 1 | 26,513 | 1.25 |
jtx9fp | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.86 | Explain like I'm five years old: Many elements found in nature are radioactive. I understand that they are probably generally in low concentrations, but you'd think with billions of people spread out all over the world, random radiation poisoning would be much more common. Why isn't it? If elements like Uranium appear in concentrations high enough to be mined how do people near Uranium or Radium deposits not just get constantly exposed to dangerous levels of radiation? Or do they and we just attribute their illnesses/cancers to other factors? | gc8eq17 | gc8f7py | 1,605,336,742 | 1,605,337,227 | 3 | 5 | This isn't a scientific answer, but from someone that lives near some old uranium mines, it's not terribly strong radiation. I mean. . .I got a chunk on my yard even, nbd. It's like living in a giant old school fiestaware dish. | The nuclei of radioactive materials emit radiation only in the act of disintegrating, aka "decaying." The more unstable a radionuclide is, the more radiation it emits; but by the flip side of the coin, the faster it decays away. Uranium is a relatively stable element that lasts for a long time and emits very little radiation. Uranium nuclei have an *extremely* low chance of decaying at any given moment compared to other radioisotopes; it takes billions of years for a sample of Uranium-238 to decay by 50%. Radium, on the other hand, takes anywhere from a few days to 1,600 years to decay by 50%. Since its nuclei are much less stable, it emits far more radiation, making it potentially dangerous. Radium also creates Radon (a radioactive gas) when it decays, which can accumulate in poorly-ventilated underground spaces and significantly increase your risk of cancer. | 0 | 485 | 1.666667 |
ls771r | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.85 | Explain like I'm five years old: What makes younger people (infants, toddlers, etc) so able to grasp the language that's spoken to them? Why is it so much harder to learn a new language or skill as an adult when you have more maturity and brain development? We've all seen younger kids being spoken to in full sentences, and they can seemingly understand things very well when they don't have a good grasp of the language themselves. How is this? | gopfjef | gopf5ul | 1,614,262,174 | 1,614,261,979 | 8 | 3 | There are two types of memory. One of these is developed through actually *doing* things (think, muscle memory - like they say, you never forget how to ride a bike. Or, painting and drawing. The more you do it, the better you become at it). This is how children predominantly learn. As we age, we start to develop that second type of memory which is based on just memorizing facts and connecting pieces of information. Great for the challenges of living in a 21st century where so many jobs require that kind of technical knowledge and experience. That's also how they tend to teach most subjects in school - you learn dates in history class, maybe some important factoids, and that's about it. Saaaame with language learning courses - they give you the grammar rules and some vocabulary and say "OK put this into a sentence. Now repeat this phrase. Good job." Well, that's just not a very effective way of learning language. But because we get so used to applying that style of learning to many things, and language would *seem* to lend itself more to that style of learning because it's just symbols and sounds, older people tend to ... just apply really ineffective methods to acquiring a new language. Children are still relying on that mechanical muscle memory to process information, they're not worried so much about rules, they're more open minded. edit: Also want to point out that this isn't a hard fast rule, as there are many adults who can pick up languages with relative ease. It's just a matter of changing your mentality and approaching the language differently than how they try to teach it in school. | Specialization. Over time, as people learn things, their brain change its train of thought. Basically it mean our brain change the way it think over time. The brain usually change depending on our hobby, our interest and action we repeat often (the same way that doing basic math often allow you to make math faster). It makes things we do often faster to do. On the other hand, It also mean that our brain lose flexibility. It become specialized for certain tasks and thus has a harder time understanding things that aren't within its domain of expertise. | 1 | 195 | 2.666667 |
7ktaio | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.92 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa? | drh1vq2 | drgyaji | 1,513,695,964 | 1,513,691,274 | 20 | 19 | In the 900s, the Kingdom of Leon (Leon means Lion) was in the Spain/Portugal area. I don't know how they got their lions, but Spain/Portugal kind of kept them. In the 1100s, Richard I used them. Heraldry was kind of formalized, so later designs English and French used them in corners. Then with Great Briton, Scotland and Ireland also adopted designs containing them from England. I'd say this is why they're common: the largest countries used them, and over several rulers. That's not to say Lion-Mermaids, and Unicorns and other mythic beasts weren't commonly used. Also, many of these lions are "leopards", when on crests of Abbots, or bastards. In the 1500s, the Nordic Countries, Denmark first adopted the lion presumably for "The Lion of Judea". These usually carry weapons. This sort of broadly explains Flanders and Norway. Mostly, you see it a lot because England was very successful. | The lion was one of the most widespread mammals not too long ago. Only humans topped him expansionwise (and reduced his appearance significantly). | 1 | 4,690 | 1.052632 |
lgh95z | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.93 | Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon. | gmrhunk | gms15v9 | 1,612,917,991 | 1,612,928,165 | 18 | 120 | Because the #1 trait they breed for is matketability. Thats why the hass is standard in the us. Americans were willing to pay for the dark skin that hides damage during trasport and storage. Next are color, texture, and flavor. Size is one of the last. If you're interested, the California Cooperative Extension's avocado variety testing program documents from the 50s-70s are available online https://calisphere.org/collections/27013/?rq=Avocado%20 | One thing to note that no one has mentioned is that all commercial Hass avacados are grafts from a tree from 1926. They aren’t grown from seeds, they are clones, and clones of clones, so we can’t choose to plant the seeds from fruit that are smaller. (well we can, we just dont) So the answer to your question is that we haven’t actually selectively bred hass avacados for the last 100 years. Another thing to note is that it can take hundreds or even thousands of years of selective breeding to make a change like that naturally. With todays tech we can make that happen in a few years probably. | 0 | 10,174 | 6.666667 |
vprzqw | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.89 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle? | iekwmww | iekv56m | 1,656,772,069 | 1,656,771,367 | 7,002 | 15 | GPS doesn't. It's really flaky if you don't have a clear view of the sky. However, most GPS systems are augmented. For instance, they can use accelerometers to know the speed and direction of travel and thus extrapolate from the last GPS position. So when you're in a tunnel your GPS can't locate you, but the positioning system takes the last GPS read and adds your movement since then, plus the assumption you're still on the same road, and plots your position in the tunnel. These "inertial" navigation systems actually predate GPS, but they loose accuracy over time from when they were last calibrated at a fixed position. Edit: as mentioned by many, smartphones have very basic estimation this way - they can't estimate position accurately long after loosing connection. And phones also use a few other techniques to augment GPS like WiFi (there's essentially a shared list of WiFi base stations and their locations), Bluetooth and cell phone towers. Edit2: I'd like to emphasize this bit > assumption you're still on the same road, and plots your position in the tunnel. Inertial navigation, even with expensive big systems, is not very accurate. Assuming you're sticking to the road network is pretty key to making it work well (plus you can probably assume they're travelling at roughly the same speed). It often freaks out if you're in a complicated tunnel network with forks and turns offs Edit3: leaving lose as loose for all the redditors who need to point it out :) | It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many "GPS" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things | 1 | 702 | 466.8 |
vec11g | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.94 | Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed? | icpa8yf | icpahxs | 1,655,469,148 | 1,655,469,287 | 35 | 3,264 | You really can't. Your brain does its best to extrapolate what it computes as depth with one eye closed, but the brain could be easily fooled. Someone who is blind in one eye will have significant depth perception problems. | Because that isn't the only piece of information your brain uses. It basically collates a bunch of different pieces of information: 1. Your eye is always moving slightly and when your eye looks in different directions, it sees different things based upon the relative position of objects in your 3D environment. 2. Over the course of your life you have lots of experience with seeing various objects and your brain develops an expectation of their size. So something that your brain believes should be large but looks small will be interpreted as being further away, and something that your brain believes should be small but looks large will be interpreted as being closer. 3. The parallax created with two eyes can be replicated simply by moving. How things change relative to other objects as you move laterally, and how their size appears to change as you move back and forth, gives your brain information with which to construct a perception of depth. | 0 | 139 | 93.257143 |
zy0sc8 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.66 | Explain like I'm five years old: I just watched Coffeezilla about the Logan Zoo-Crypto-Scam. Can somebody explain me, how something can be worth millions of dollars, when no one is trading it? The whole stealth launch I don´t understand. Where does the value come from? | j23bn9f | j23cwde | 1,672,308,124 | 1,672,309,175 | 14 | 27 | The value comes from the hope that someone with more money and less brains/luck will buy them off of you for more than you paid for them. That's how speculative bubbles work. | Of course, there is no value. The scam works something like this: You create, say 1001 crypto coins or tokens. Then you sell 1 for $10, maybe to a friend or a sockpuppet. Now your coin is trading at $10. So you say that your 1000 remaining coins are worth 1000 times $10 because that's what you would supposedly get on "the market". The real question is why anyone falls for that. The answer is that it makes sense for stocks and some other things. Here's how it makes sense: When you take out a loan, you get a sum of money and pay it back in smaller sums in the future. The money you get is the present-day value of those future payments you make. Stocks work on the same principle. You give money to a company which uses your money to build factories and stuff. Later, you get a share of the profits. The value of the stock, should be the present-day value of those future profits. So the value of all stock combined, should be the value of all the future profits. With crypto, that calculation makes absolutely no sense. There is just nothing behind it. But people who don't realize that may be fooled because they know it from other investments. | 0 | 1,051 | 1.928571 |
b36i8n | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.73 | Explain like I'm five years old Why is it that you breathe into someone’s mouth during CPR, but we exhale carbon dioxide which is something humans shouldn’t inhale? | eixis82 | eixijxk | 1,553,049,546 | 1,553,049,371 | 25 | 6 | First, our lungs don't absorb 100% of the oxygen in one breath; there's plenty of oxygen left in your breath when you breathe and exhale normally. So the idea was that, even though there's some CO2 from your breath, there's also quite a bit of oxygen and you're getting it into the other person's lungs. And second, as of a few years ago, the recommended CPR technique is to skip the mouth-to-mouth and just do chest compressions. The ribs kinda get some air into the lungs by themselves, and it's actually more important to get whatever amount of blood to the brain you can (by compressing the chest). | Not all of your exhaled breath is CO2. Part of that breath contains oxygen. The person receiving CPR is getting zero new oxygen under their own power, so even the partial influx of oxygen is thought to be an improvement. Quick search suggests that exhaled breath is about 16% oxygen, compared to ~20.5% oxygen in regular air. The exhaled breath is about 4% - 5% CO2. Their blood contains several minutes of useful oxygen, so it’s thought that doing chest compressions to circulate blood is probably more immediately useful, anyway, and that’s a thing people are more willing to do, even without the rescue breaths. | 1 | 175 | 4.166667 |
qjsjir | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.85 | Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon’s orbit? | hit8qdu | his8g6l | 1,635,715,528 | 1,635,700,169 | 39 | 31 | In a more eli5 vein… the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That’s a massive distance to cover. | This would require you to accelerate the ISS by 8 kilometers per second. Actually, if you did this with a very low thrust engine burning continually probably more like 10, but lets say 8 for now. What would that take? Delta v = engine exhaust velocity x ln x (mass with fuel/mas without fuel) What exhaust velocities could we be talking about? For a chemical rocket, lets say 4,500m/s, for an ion engine lets say 80,000. Working the equation back, a chemical rocket would need to be 5/6ths fuel to archive that, an ion drive about 1.11 times. The tanks to contain this fuel would mass about 1/10th the mass of the fuel. The ISS has a mass of about 420 tonnes, so to achieve this with liquid fuel would require around 4,200 tonnes of fuel in 420 tonnes of tanks, or 4,620 tonnes of additional payload to be launched into orbit. This would require more than 180 space shuttle launches, or some equivalent. Maybe 30 Saturn Vs would be more sensible? Ion drives make more sense, less than 50 tonnes of fuel and tanks. But it would take years, probably decades, to move, and you'd need one hell of a power supply for the ion drives, which would of course add mass... | 1 | 15,359 | 1.258065 |
qwqdp1 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.91 | Explain like I'm five years old: How do power grids actually work? I get the idea that power is generated by large power plants that send through various transformers until it gets to my house. What I don’t understand is how the power grid knows electricity is being used. When my solar panels send electricity back to the grid, where does it go? Do the power plants constantly adjust production based on momentary demand or is there a such thing as power storage for the grid? | hl4iqqf | hl4hdks | 1,637,246,674 | 1,637,246,073 | 11 | 10 | A power grid is often referred to as an "infinite bus." You have numerous generation sources and numerous loads using the energy. The contribution of any particular generator has little effect on the grid as a whole. However, the grid cannot store energy. (There are large-scale battery storage projects coming on line, but those still function as either a generation source or as a load when the batteries are charging.) The total amount of energy input to the grid must equal the energy being used. Therefore, you have several classes of generation, including base load (usually big coal or nuclear plants), load followers (large or small plants that are ramped up or down to match the demand), and peakers (usually smaller stations that can be put on line in a hurry to match peak demand.) Hydropower is especially useful in maintaining balance as it can be ramped up and down dramatically in a short time. A system must have enough "spinning reserve" to match any short-term spikes in load. If the demand exceeds generation and no more generation can be ramped up or brought on line, the frequency on the grid is affected and the system can become unstable in some situations. Worst-case scenario is generation starts tripping off-line and parts of the grid become "islanded." Sections can be shed off to preserve the health of the grid as a whole. Most modern grids have a balancing authority, such as an Independent System Operator (ISO), which procures and schedules generation during the day in anticipation of the estimated load during different times of day. | The system is designed so power flows to where it’s needed automatically, without computer or human intervention. When an ordinary home flips on a light, extra current flows, which increases the “drag” on all the generators on the network at once. The generators will all gradually slow down over time — just a tiny bit— until a human or computer at the power plant notices and adds fuel or opens a water valve to bring the generators back up to speed. In the standard power grid, there is no storage except on the kinetic energy of the spinning turbines. The system is self-balancing on timescales of seconds, and power plants regulate their output to match demand over minutes to days. Of course there are exceptions these days. When your solar panel pumps power onto the grid, it speeds up all those generators, so their owners have to burn less fuel to keep them running. Your power doesn’t have a particular destination: it feeds the whole grid at once, just like the big generators do. But even today, all the Tesla Powerwalls in the country don’t amount to a significant amount of battery storage. Some people have expressed concern that if we replace too many spinning turbines with solar panels, the grid will have less “inertia” and be less stable and harder to manage. But batteries can help with that problem. | 1 | 601 | 1.1 |
27s1p4 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.71 | Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor? | ci3t2b0 | ci3tdyw | 1,402,403,116 | 1,402,404,290 | 13 | 24 | A simple way to put it is that Mr Snowden did wrong by the law, but right by the people. Depending on who you ask, some say that the law triumphs over the people **(the law is always right because it is written by the best and brightest, just shut up and obey)**, others say the people triumphs over the law **(the people decide whether a law is fair/just or not regardless of who wrote it).** | Because he leaked 1.4-1.7 million secret documents to the world. He gave them to reporters and said "use your own discretion". There's no way he knew what was in all those documents. As much as people love to think all this was about freedom of information and the abstract, it has real life (deadly) implications for some people in our intelligence services, and long term military planning. Be a whistleblower all you want, by leaking a couple damning documents to reputable American media that could change the way things our done. Don't download sensitive data in the millions for everyone to see. A former KGB official stated the Russian FSB had targeted Snowden as a candidate for defection by 2007, in Geneva. Who knows if that's true, but the conventional spy game is alive and well these days - as much as we'd like to pretend the world has evolved past it. | 0 | 1,174 | 1.846154 |
umwlf7 | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.94 | Explain like I'm five years old Why do birds such as parakeets/parrots imitate things owners say and learn phrases to 'communicate'. It appears that they enjoy it and even are affectionate. | i84ow8l | i84te86 | 1,652,233,567 | 1,652,235,622 | 27 | 101 | Bird says something mimicking a human. Human gets excited and rewards bird with positive emotion and treats. Bird learns: mimicking human = getting good things back. | They’re very social and intelligent. I imagine they learn to mimic the same reason humans do, to communicate with others. Babies start out learning to talk because they repeat what people say to them. Also humans make animal noises so it’s not crazy that social animals would make human noises | 0 | 2,055 | 3.740741 |
upccmv | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.92 | Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago? | i8kqv4x | i8k5cyv | 1,652,535,975 | 1,652,521,057 | 50 | 16 | People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman’s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to “catch the spirits”. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word “spirits”, aka alcohol. | There’s the theory that someone wanted sweet water. So they put honey and water into a jar mixed it, took a few sips, closed the lid and put the stuff away for a few days / weeks. Then opened it again and drank from it again, unknowingly being the first person to drink alcohol. And mead at that. Then they wanted more of the stuff, so they repeated the process. And then they experimented. | 1 | 14,918 | 3.125 |
ycmk8m | explainlikeimfive_test | 0.9 | Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them | itn37ii | itn9ine | 1,666,646,308 | 1,666,648,907 | 27 | 96 | The shell of a fresh egg is full, but the shell is porous, so as it ages some liquid evaporates through the shell. Having extra space within the shell makes the cooked egg easier to peel. So a fresh egg will be hard to peel cleanly, while an older egg will be easier to peel. | Last time this question came up, a bunch of opinions were offered. A lot of people claim the bit about new eggs vs store bought eggs is a myth. Mostly it has to do with how they are cooked. All these "test kitchen" videos say the thing to do is get salted water boiling vigorously, and gently lower in room-temperature eggs. Don't over-cook them, cool them in cold water or ice water water you remove them from the boil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBSvpKSSYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8Cudduu0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFFDXJ2DR9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV9nz1qlY64 | 0 | 2,599 | 3.555556 |
Subsets and Splits