train
stringlengths 219
46.1k
|
|---|
### Human: CMV: I secretly think religion is a crutch for weak people.### Assistant: It sounds like you are speaking more specifically about Christianity, rather than religion in general.
For example, Judaism doesn't really have the concept of heaven, and is inconsistent about whether there is an afterlife - but if there is, all people go to "the Abyss", Sheol.
The Jewish God doesn't have a grand plan that's all for the best - instead, he's just God and who the hell are *you* to question him. (Seriously, read the Book of Job to see what a dick He can be).
And despite that, he's given Jews a huge list of rules to follow, not because you win a prize for following them, but because God told you to - and He's God and you aren't.
So, really, being a Jew is more of an added burden than a crutch.
Now, let's get back to Christianity. There are a lot of variants, many of which don't fit your story either. Calvinism, for instance, offers little comfort.
So, let's focus on the more "comforting" variants. For some, the reality of God is a simple fact. It's not a choice they make. He is real and He impacts their life. A serf in the Middle Ages may never see their Lord, but they know he is in control of their lives, has the power of life and death over them, and can make their lives happy or miserable. That's simply a fact of life - so it is with many people and God.
So, that leaves those who bought into St. Paul's excellent "carrot and stick" marketing of Christianity. Humans are social animals. We need leaders, we need to feel our packs are safe. Some turn to philosophers, poets, songwriters or authors; others to God. But we all strive to find some meaning, some justification for battling through hardship. Does that make it a crutch? If so, then, don't we all use them?### Human: >It sounds like you are speaking more specifically about Christianity, rather than religion in general.
I wasn't thinking that explicitly when I posted this, but it seems you are correct. Good observation.
>The Jewish God doesn't have a grand plan that's all for the best - instead, he's just God and who the hell are you to question him.
I guess that pretty closely mirrors my view as the universe as a random, entropic system that doesn't care for any single individual. The only difference is that I don't feel that I shouldn't dare to question it, only that it is a fruitless effort to do so.
>So, really, being a Jew is more of an added burden than a crutch.
So if there is no carrot on the end of the proverbial stick, why follow the rules in the first place? There are lots of people who don't follow the tenets of Judaism who don't seem to get punished.
>Now, let's get back to Christianity. There are a lot of variants, many of which don't fit your story either. Calvinism, for instance, offers little comfort.
Good point. I've been lumping religion together as a part of these feelings, but I suppose I really do mean Christianity. (In particular the flavors practiced in the southern US.)
>For some, the reality of God is a simple fact. It's not a choice they make. He is real and He impacts their life. A serf in the Middle Ages may never see their Lord, but they know he is in control of their lives, has the power of life and death over them, and can make their lives happy or miserable. That's simply a fact of life - so it is with many people and God.
I suppose I'll just never understand this myself. I get your analogy to a serf and a lord, but at least in this case the lord is a person, and people are already known to exist in the first place, so I don't see automatic belief that the lord is an actual thing capable of impacting their lives as such a strange and irrational belief.### Assistant: > So if there is no carrot on the end of the proverbial stick, why follow the rules in the first place?
Because God told you so.### Human: > There are lots of people who don't follow the tenets of Judaism who don't seem to get punished.
Why follow the rules if there is no punishment?
Or I suppose this more accurately represents my views on this: why choose to believe the rules even exist if no one is punished for them?### Assistant: > Because God told you so.
I'm unclear why you think this would be an insufficient answer for many people. |
### Human: The definition of a "purebred" dog should be liberalized to improve health. CMV.### Assistant: I feel that a better way of handling this problem would be for the AKC to start enforcing breeding health requirements. At present, any backyard breeder can become AKC registered, oftentimes with nothing more than an official pedigree. Not requiring health standards in breeding is essentially what allows devastating congenital problems such as hip dysplasia to be reinforced in the gene pool.### Human: What happens if you aren't registered?### Assistant: Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do to affect the breeding requirements for unregistered breeders. Fortunately, I think it's safe to say that the majority of dog breeders want to be registered with the AKC because AKC registration is a very effective marketing tool. With AKC registration, breeders can sell their puppies more easily and at higher prices.
That said, AKC policy changes would probably be the most effective at improving the health in the gene pools of certain breeds. I like your idea of liberalizing DNA requirements, but it's a tricky issue. How do you breed in healthier DNA from an outside breed without affecting the conceptual and biological integrity of the breed's gene pool?
For example, if the AKC were to allow pugs to be cross bred with a particular outside breed in order to reduce the occurrence of congenital respiratory problems, you're essentially creating a new breed. This is something I doubt the official pug breed committees would readily jump on board for. The AKC relies on the counsel of these committees when setting breed-specific policies.
This is why I feel that breeding health requirements is a better place to start. As for breeds like pugs and bull dogs, it really is unfortunate that congenital respiratory problems hallmark those breeds. In a word, it's cruel. Hip dysplasia in golden retrievers is seen as bad, whereas things like entropion, ESP, and EVS, are seen as cute in pugs (not directly, but that is the result of breeding for the pug "look").### Human: >Fortunately, I think it's safe to say that the majority of dog breeders want to be registered with the AKC because AKC registration is a very effective marketing tool
Hmm, a very interesting point. I like it.
>This is something I doubt the official pug breed committees would readily jump on board for
Why not, given the serious problems pugs currently face?### Assistant: The idea is that you start with something that the majority of the committees would readily agree with, like breeding health requirements. I say that breed committees are more likely to go for changes to breeding health requirements, as opposed to relaxing DNA requirements, because it’s logistically easier and you’re not messing with the integrity of the breed. We already know that one of the primary goals of breed committees and the AKC is to preserve breed integrity.
Being that changes to policies regarding breeding health would be easier to achieve, you could therefore improve the health of various breeds’ gene pools much more quickly. Once you’ve made this change in policy, then the conversation can open up much more easily to include altering the breed in a major way.
I don’t think that major changes to certain breeds is a bad thing. The real issue is with the approach and getting the ball rolling in the right direction.### Human: ∆
I know this is late, but thanks for helping me understand the people that need to be involved in increasing motivation to improve health. As you say, the AKC is really going to need to be involved, and moving them in the direction of promoting health is the primary concern, more than any one specific "fix".### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Austindk. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Austindk)]
^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)] |
### Human: CMV: Instead of tuition, universities should charge a percent of your future earnings.### Assistant: Right now banks or the government front money to Universities for student tuition. In return, students pay interest on that money during repayment. Interest is essentially the mechanism that allows the money to be fronted in the first place. The vast majority of universities would not be able to afford fronting money for students in order to be repaid sometime in the future. It's really a numbers issue. Your system has to make up for the money that is lost in interest.
For your plan to work, someone would have to front that money to the university in the first place, which really puts us right back where we started with this problem.### Human: This is getting at "how do we deal with the transition period" I guess.
Two thoughts:
- The transition can happen slowly. That way the university is only out a small fraction of tuition money each year, they don't have four years where they have no income.
- Presumably universities can loans from the banks directly. They would accept the variable student payments and turn them into interest payments on the loans. The same amount of money, on average, is going in and out, so I don't see why you'd be losing money on interest.### Assistant: If the Universities take out the loans then they are paying interest on the loans. Are you proposing that the interest that the Universities are paying be passed along to the students when the repayment is taken from their income? If so, I don't see what you've accomplished. This is almost entirely the same thing as student loans only you've added in a middle man which will probably makes things less efficient and more costly.### Human: What we've accomplished is that students pay a percent of their income rather than a fixed dollar amount. I don't think that's "almost entirely the same thing."### Assistant: Repayment is already based on income. I have loans and when I wasn't making money I just sent proof of income and they adjusted my payments due to hardship. I'm not saying we couldn't improve that system, but adding in an entirely new system and to manage that change seems extremely inefficient.
I think there is lower hanging fruit here for improving this situation.### Human: Not OP, but isn't it worth considering that universities and their students behave differently, and have different information? Specifically, the average college student goes to college once. Whereas, the average university has some decent hundreds plus number of students every year.
The student going to school a single time makes their best educated guess as to whether the loans are a good idea for them and what they want to study, with a sample size of zero (never been to school before, can't measure the outcome.)
However, the university can measure their returns in OP's proposed system and see "oh, generally we're losing money on degrees in X, let's offer less aid for that degree, reduce our admittance in that area in future years, eliminate the degree altogether, or change the program to produce more graduates/more successful hires/higher pay after graduation."
The key to this change is the economic forces driving whether a degree and associated loans are a good idea or a bad idea now apply at acceptance time rather than at graduation. Certainly doesn't solve the whole problem, but maybe solves a piece of it. |
### Human: I believe Capitalism should be abolished for the interest of humanity. If you have any objections to this, I beg of you to CMV### Assistant: >the purpose becomes to make a profit, shoes being secondary
why do you assume that quality falls when profits are involved. There's two ways to increase profits: cut costs and increase revenue. You seem to be forgetting that second part. Give me any category or market and I'll give you a company that prides itself on quality products and people pay them more because of it.### Human: [Planned Obsolescence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)### Assistant: This is to manipulate markets in to looking forward to progress. If manufacturers based their innovations on the contentment of the consumers then innovation would halt. It is hard for people to see beyond their satisfaction for the sake of a progression they are not bound to contribute to (in this case innovation)
Simply put, innovation and visions for the future should not be left to the masses. It should be in the hands of the capable. Not that I am critiquing the abilities of people to think but I believe that those who specialize in their fields should determine where to head in terms of innovation.### Human: really. so the fact that over 300 million nokia 32xx phones got thrown into garbage dumps in the last 10 years, is good, because of innovation? This is a toxic perception, and it's the reason people compare western society to a cancer cell - growth for the sake of growth.
You're puking up corporate rhetorics, and you should really think twice about supporting this soon-to-collapse throwaway industry### Assistant: > so the fact that over 300 million nokia 32xx phones got thrown into garbage dumps in the last 10 years, is good, because of innovation?
Do you think they were thrown away because they malfunctioned or simply because there were better phones available?
I would not use IT as an example of a sector with planned obsolence problems. Majority of IT products are thrown away because they are technologically obsolete, not because they fail.### Human: Products could be designed to be modular so that they could be updated instead of completely replaced. You know, like a computer.### Assistant: Size is a major limiting factor. Hence why laptops are less upgradeable than desktops.### Human: Sure, but that isn't what is stopping Apple from making the iPhone upgradeable.### Assistant: It plays a role. In the end, when they come out with a new model, you'd essentially be replacing all the innards.
The average tech user isn't that technologically inclined.### Human: I feel like you don't understand at all. They wouldn't constantly be coming out with new models. You'd buy a shell and replace individual components as you needed. Sure under the current model it seems unviable but that is because it wasn't designed that way. If from the beginning tech products were designed this way it could be done.### Assistant: It's literally impossible to do that in a current smartphone. All components are soldered together because a solder joint is much smaller than any type of connector. Have you ever done a repair to a recent piece of mobile electronics?
Look up repair videos for iPhones and see how small everything is, putting connector everywhere would make it bigger than the huge first cellphones.
Also: even if it was pluggable, how many people do you know who actually upgrade parts even in their desktop computers? A small minority.
Finally, the actual cost of manufacturing an iPhone is fairly low (say $150), the majority of the costs is in other places and would still be added if you were to have a component shipped to you. Furthermore, the iPhone is mostly made in automated facilities which are far cheaper to operate than your local repairman.
It simply wouldn't work either technologically or financially.### Human: It wouldn't work now. We're a hell of a long way down the rabbit hole we're down. You're trying to solve the problem under the paradigm of capitalism. It can't be done. That's the point. Planned obsolescence is one of the problems of capitalism. A solution would require a new economic system.
And if you want to talk about costs. What is the cost of all the phones thrown away each year? You say not many people upgrade their computers, how many recycle or responsibly dispose of their phones?### Assistant: You do understand that it's not a question of things being deliberately unupgradable but rather of the technology necessary simply not existing? A module-based smartphone is being developed, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
And you also completely missed the other point EverybodyLikesSteak made - even IF such tech existed, people simply wouldn't do it. Desktop PCs have been upgradable since forever and people just go out and buy a new one, instead of upgrading, because keeping up with the hardware changes is a pain, if you're not a techie.### Human: My point is the reason all of the things you said are true is because of capitalism and consumerism.### Assistant: So, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that if our system were not capitalism/consumerism then:
a) our technology would be advanced to the point where even smartphones would be easily upgradable, and either
b1) people would prefer to spend time on studying up on the upgrades, then picking the most suitable ones and, finally, upgrading their phones (all in all doing a lot of thinking), instead of just buying new ones (without thinking), or
b2) there would be only 1 set of upgrades per tech generation, so there would be no choice to make, which means people would could just get that 1 set (without thinking) and upgrade their phones, instead of buying new ones (without thinking).
Would this be correct? And if not, could you explain where I missed your position, please?### Human: I think our priorities in designing tech would be different. We would design products to be good, not for profit. Without making a claim as to whether it would be more or less advanced I would say it would be designed for long term use instead of being designed to get the consumer to buy a new one one to two years. I think people would be more discerning in their purchases. People used to care about quality and craftsmanship. I'm sure you have/had a grandparent that would love to talk your ear off about how much more well made things used to be.
And I don't think planned obsolescence is some kind of grand conspiracy, btw. I think it is a natural product of capitalism. All of the reasons you are giving for why phones are built the way they are is correct.### Assistant: But even if the products were designed and made to last forever, unless you could stop technological advances or change the very mindset of people, new phones would still get bought every year, because they're simply more advanced, more fun, better-looking etc.
This is coming from someone who actually lived in a country that had something close to what you would apparently prefer (Yugoslavia), so I got many first-hand stories from my parents and grandparents. The reason why they didn't buy new things wasn't that their old things were obsolete but rather that there were no (new) things to buy. They literally had nothing they could spend their then-generous salaries on.
So yes, they cared about quality, because what they had was often literally irreplaceable for prolonged periods.### Human: The mindset of people is determined by their environment. The reason people consume the way we do is because of capitalism. Changing the system would change the mindset over time. I think we are starting to enter the point where the advancement of technology in regards to cell phones does favor your point a bit but I don't think the difference between the first iPhone and the current iPhone is particularly dramatic. It seems dramatic because it delivers much more of the stuff we are programmed to like by our consumer culture but I think if you take a step back and look at them free from that they do basically the same thing for most consumers.
I've heard good things about socialism in Yugoslavia. I don't think it serves as an example of what socialism would be like if implemented now, though. There are things to learn about the positives of the system and the negatives but the material conditions of Yugoslavia then and much of the world today are too different to honestly think socialism in say the US would be at all similar to what they had in Yugoslavia.### Assistant: I agree that the environment can determine the mindset. I don't think it's so much that people like their conditions as that they don't know better conditions. Someone in Africa might be used to walking miles to get water for the day, but if you give them the chance of indoor plumbing, I would bet that the majority would happily take it.
I don't know about iPhones, since I dislike Apple, but the difference between the first smartphone and modern phones actually IS dramatic. Even the difference between the first and last Samsung Galaxies is, if you actually use the phone as it was intended to be used (i.e. more than just calling and texting). My mom would agree with you - she always says that she doesn't need a newer phone/pc/whatever, since the old one works just fine. Then when her old piece dies and she does get a new one, she does admit that the difference is quite noticeable and wouldn't go back. Every time.
It's interesting in a way - I actually know quite a few people that think upgrading tech gadgets every year or two is useless, but they replace their car every few years, even though there is much less of a difference between a car from the '50 and a modern car than between a phone from even 5 years ago and now.
About socialism in Yugoslavia - depends on who you talk to. There are many so called Yugonostalgics, who would give a kidney to go back. OTOH there are many who remember the not-so-shiny elements of that part of history, who would never trade the current situation, recession or not, for the illusion of wealth in Yugoslavia, which was mainly supported by state-imposed monopolies, isolationism, and the milking of both the West and East Blocs for loans so Yugoslavia didn't side with the other.
It is true, though, that it would be difficult to predict what socialism would look like today. Personally I think it would fail even more spectacularly than in the past, but that's just my opinion. I support socially conscientious capitalism wholeheartedly, and I do believe that every state should mandate that a part of the profits (after taxes) go for the improvement of everyone's lives, but workers getting a say in how a company should be run - no way. There's a reason why professional specializations exist, and letting a production worker dictate marketing instead of a marketing specialist isn't really what would work, I think.### Human: >I agree that the environment can determine the mindset. I don't think it's so much that people like their conditions as that they don't know better conditions. Someone in Africa might be used to walking miles to get water for the day, but if you give them the chance of indoor plumbing, I would bet that the majority would happily take it.
Of course there are things that are objectively better than others. I don't think the bells and whistles and new colors on a cell phone are it.
>I don't know about iPhones, since I dislike Apple, but the difference between the first smartphone and modern phones actually IS dramatic. Even the difference between the first and last Samsung Galaxies is, if you actually use the phone as it was intended to be used (i.e. more than just calling and texting). My mom would agree with you - she always says that she doesn't need a newer phone/pc/whatever, since the old one works just fine. Then when her old piece dies and she does get a new one, she does admit that the difference is quite noticeable and wouldn't go back. Every time.
I do everything on my cell phone. I'm on it right now. I watch Netflix, play games, write e-mails, everything. But at the end of the day it is just mindless entertainment. The things that are actually important that I do on my current newish phone are the same as what I did on my first smart phone.
>It's interesting in a way - I actually know quite a few people that think upgrading tech gadgets every year or two is useless, but they replace their car every few years, even though there is much less of a difference between a car from the '50 and a modern car than between a phone from even 5 years ago and now.
Well yeah. Cars are the worst with planned obsolescence. They release new models every year. That's just ridiculous for a purchase people should really only be making once a decade barring huge life changes like marriage and children. They keep coming out with new models to get people to constantly replace perfectly functional cars with new ones.
>About socialism in Yugoslavia - depends on who you talk to. There are many so called Yugonostalgics, who would give a kidney to go back. OTOH there are many who remember the not-so-shiny elements of that part of history, who would never trade the current situation, recession or not, for the illusion of wealth in Yugoslavia, which was mainly supported by state-imposed monopolies, isolationism, and the milking of both the West and East Blocs for loans so Yugoslavia didn't side with the other.
I'm guessing the nostalgics lived better under socialism and the non-nostalgics live better now even with the recession. That's common. If I was a feudal lord I might have hated the advent of capitalism. If I was a peasant I would love it. If you're the owner of capital socialism sucks for you. The abolition of slavery sucked for the slave owners.
>It is true, though, that it would be difficult to predict what socialism would look like today. Personally I think it would fail even more spectacularly than in the past, but that's just my opinion. I support socially conscientious capitalism wholeheartedly, and I do believe that every state should mandate that a part of the profits (after taxes) go for the improvement of everyone's lives, but workers getting a say in how a company should be run - no way. There's a reason why professional specializations exist, and letting a production worker dictate marketing instead of a marketing specialist isn't really what would work, I think.
Do you diagnose yourself when you're sick or do you go to the doctor? I'll assume you go to the doctor. When the doctor does his diagnosis do you listen to him? Does that make him your boss? Does he have to be your boss for you to listen to him?
What makes you think workers are less capable of hiring a marketing specialist than a capitalist?### Assistant: > Of course there are things that are objectively better than others. I don't think the bells and whistles and new colors on a cell phone are it.
Agreed. What I had in mind was improved hardware and software that allows for increased productivity and more fun.
>I do everything on my cell phone. I'm on it right now. I watch Netflix, play games, write e-mails, everything. But at the end of the day it is just mindless entertainment. The things that are actually important that I do on my current newish phone are the same as what I did on my first smart phone.
"Important" is subjective. For me, my "fun" is more important than my work, because I can more easily find a new job than something new that would entertain me (from stupid games to android programming for example).
> I'm guessing the nostalgics lived better under socialism and the non-nostalgics live better now even with the recession.
Actually, not necessarily (I mean specifically for Yugoslavia now). Many people agree that work (and life in general) was much easier in socialism, and they had more money, relatively speaking, but they wouldn't go back because of how that system suffocated personal productivity, freedom and exceptionalism.
OTOH, many <30 y/o, well-off kids of relatively well-off parents are the strongest supporters for socialism. The generation that doesn't personally remember it has somehow romanticized it beyond all proportion by now.
Anecdotally, I'd say that people over 65 and below 30 support socialism. Those in between are mostly for capitalism. That's the feeling I get anyway.
>What makes you think workers are less capable of hiring a marketing specialist than a capitalist?
The fact that they wouldn't, because "those people just charge too much and don't do anything anyway", just like 90 % of other white collar workers. I take it you live in the States. Perhaps it's different there, but here, the general consensus among the "working class" seems to be that most of the white collar workers are just leeching off their work, not doing anything productive and not contributing at all.
A specific example would be that everybody is convinced doctors are overpaid (hint: the average doctor likely makes in the vicinity of €2000 a month here, which is twice the average salary).
As said, I support some socialist elements. I support THEORETICAL socialism and communism. I just don't believe that it can work in real life with the people that inhabit the planet right now. Not without brainwashing/forcing them to live differently.### Human: >> Of course there are things that are objectively better than others. I don't think the bells and whistles and new colors on a cell phone are it.
>Agreed. What I had in mind was improved hardware and software that allows for increased productivity and more fun.
And I think consumerism is the only reason you find that better so it isn't objective but subjective.
>>I do everything on my cell phone. I'm on it right now. I watch Netflix, play games, write e-mails, everything. But at the end of the day it is just mindless entertainment. The things that are actually important that I do on my current newish phone are the same as what I did on my first smart phone.
>"Important" is subjective. For me, my "fun" is more important than my work, because I can more easily find a new job than something new that would entertain me (from stupid games to android programming for example).
But are the games on a new smartphone really better? They seem to be the same simple games they've always been just with better graphics.
>> I'm guessing the nostalgics lived better under socialism and the non-nostalgics live better now even with the recession.
>Actually, not necessarily (I mean specifically for Yugoslavia now). Many people agree that work (and life in general) was much easier in socialism, and they had more money, relatively speaking, but they wouldn't go back because of how that system suffocated personal productivity, freedom and exceptionalism.
OTOH, many <30 y/o, well-off kids of relatively well-off parents are the strongest supporters for socialism. The generation that doesn't personally remember it has somehow romanticized it beyond all proportion by now.
Anecdotally, I'd say that people over 65 and below 30 support socialism. Those in between are mostly for capitalism. That's the feeling I get anyway.
Well capitalism mostly benefits people between 30 and 65. Younger people can't find jobs in a recession because they're competing with people with more experience. Older people find that the money they'd saved for retirement isn't going to be enough. So the younger people might not have actually lived under socialism but they probably think they would have lived better than they do now.
>>What makes you think workers are less capable of hiring a marketing specialist than a capitalist?
>The fact that they wouldn't, because "those people just charge too much and don't do anything anyway", just like 90 % of other white collar workers. I take it you live in the States. Perhaps it's different there, but here, the general consensus among the "working class" seems to be that most of the white collar workers are just leeching off their work, not doing anything productive and not contributing at all.
A specific example would be that everybody is convinced doctors are overpaid (hint: the average doctor likely makes in the vicinity of €2000 a month here, which is twice the average salary).
You, like most supporters of capitalism, have a very low opinion of your fellow man. But you also contradict yourselves. You say capitalism is great because people innovate and create wealth because they are incentivized to do so and people act in their own best interest but then when socialists say their song and dance you guys start assuming people are too dumb to act in their own best interests. Can't have it both ways, friend.
>As said, I support some socialist elements. I support THEORETICAL socialism and communism. I just don't believe that it can work in real life with the people that inhabit the planet right now. Not without brainwashing/forcing them to live differently.
All or nothing. Having some slavery and some free laborers isn't abolishing slavery. Having some capitalism and some socialism isn't socialism. It is capitalism where some people play at being socialists.### Assistant: >And I think consumerism is the only reason you find that better so it isn't objective but subjective.
So, consumerism is the only reason I find increased productivity better? Well, it's true that there has yet to be a comparably productive iteration of an attempt at socialism, but still...
>But are the games on a new smartphone really better? They seem to be the same simple games they've always been just with better graphics.
Better graphics is an objective improvement. Otherwise, people wouldn't care about bad eyesight either.
>Well capitalism mostly benefits people between 30 and 65. Younger people can't find jobs in a recession because they're competing with people with more experience. Older people find that the money they'd saved for retirement isn't going to be enough. So the younger people might not have actually lived under socialism but they probably think they would have lived better than they do now.
So we determined that people are selfish assholes. And if this is true, they would just slack off in socialism (and historically they did), since society would take care of them, until everything was running on loans again, since productivity and profit would be gone (as it historically happened).
>You, like most supporters of capitalism, have a very low opinion of your fellow man. But you also contradict yourselves. You say capitalism is great because people innovate and create wealth because they are incentivized to do so and people act in their own best interest but then when socialists say their song and dance you guys start assuming people are too dumb to act in their own best interests. Can't have it both ways, friend.
I admit, I do. And yes, people in capitalism do create wealth out of self-interest. If they don't they starve. In socialism, they don't have to do anything, since society takes care of them. I'm not just spouting rhetoric, that's a part of socialism that remained ingrained in my country's culture up to this day, 20+ years after socialism officially ended.
And most people, capitalist, socialist, communist, whateverist, do not think far enough ahead. That's why you got people that would tax the bejesus out of anyone with a BMW on one side, and people that would abolish minimum wage on the other.
>All or nothing. Having some slavery and some free laborers isn't abolishing slavery. Having some capitalism and some socialism isn't socialism. It is capitalism where some people play at being socialists.
If you never lived in Europe, you likely aren't even aware how well social policies can go hand in hand with moderate capitalism. They do, and it's the best system so far. And unless you want to install a dictatorship, there's no way you can have all, therefore it'll either be 50:50 (as in the 1st world minus the US) or nothing (as in the US)### Human: >>And I think consumerism is the only reason you find that better so it isn't objective but subjective.
>So, consumerism is the only reason I find increased productivity better? Well, it's true that there has yet to be a comparably productive iteration of an attempt at socialism, but still...
Increased productivity? Playing games?
>>But are the games on a new smartphone really better? They seem to be the same simple games they've always been just with better graphics.
>Better graphics is an objective improvement. Otherwise, people wouldn't care about bad eyesight either.
Only if you accept graphics as being important. Would better graphics on my alarm clock be an objective improvement? I can see the numbers just fine on my twenty year old alarm clock.
>>Well capitalism mostly benefits people between 30 and 65. Younger people can't find jobs in a recession because they're competing with people with more experience. Older people find that the money they'd saved for retirement isn't going to be enough. So the younger people might not have actually lived under socialism but they probably think they would have lived better than they do now.
>So we determined that people are selfish assholes. And if this is true, they would just slack off in socialism (and historically they did), since society would take care of them, until everything was running on loans again, since productivity and profit would be gone (as it historically happened).
It wouldn't be in people's best interest to slack off. That is just a pro-capitalist strawman.
>>You, like most supporters of capitalism, have a very low opinion of your fellow man. But you also contradict yourselves. You say capitalism is great because people innovate and create wealth because they are incentivized to do so and people act in their own best interest but then when socialists say their song and dance you guys start assuming people are too dumb to act in their own best interests. Can't have it both ways, friend.
>I admit, I do. And yes, people in capitalism do create wealth out of self-interest. If they don't they starve. In socialism, they don't have to do anything, since society takes care of them. I'm not just spouting rhetoric, that's a part of socialism that remained ingrained in my country's culture up to this day, 20+ years after socialism officially ended.
And most people, capitalist, socialist, communist, whateverist, do not think far enough ahead. That's why you got people that would tax the bejesus out of anyone with a BMW on one side, and people that would abolish minimum wage on the other.
>>All or nothing. Having some slavery and some free laborers isn't abolishing slavery. Having some capitalism and some socialism isn't socialism. It is capitalism where some people play at being socialists.
>If you never lived in Europe, you likely aren't even aware how well social policies can go hand in hand with moderate capitalism. They do, and it's the best system so far. And unless you want to install a dictatorship, there's no way you can have all, therefore it'll either be 50:50 (as in the 1st world minus the US) or nothing (as in the US)
Welfare is not socialism. It is basic human decency. What does it say that socialists were the first to install programs for it, though?### Assistant: > Increased productivity? Playing games?
Nope. Being able to do just about anything I do on my laptop, even when I don't have my laptop with me. Being able to use proper office-like software. Being able to do all kinds of stuff on the fly which comes in handy professionally, but wouldn't work nearly as well on smartphones even a few generations ago.
>Only if you accept graphics as being important. Would better graphics on my alarm clock be an objective improvement? I can see the numbers just fine on my twenty year old alarm clock.
If you do anything graphics related and you need to do something right then and there, yes, graphics are very important. Better-looking games? Yup, graphics are important there as well. If graphics weren't important in real life, we'd still be playing chess with scraps of paper with piece names written on them, not with carved wooden pieces for example.
And I could argue that you only think you need an alarm clock because of consumerism. The majority of the world functions perfectly fine without alarm clocks, since they have the sun and/or roosters to wake them.
> It wouldn't be in people's best interest to slack off. That is just a pro-capitalist strawman.
Again, it's not a straw-man but experience from my own country. You can argue all you want, but EXPERIENCE shows that people, who grow up in a system, where there is no penalty for slacking off, where slacking off can even be rewarded, if you just know the right people, will NOT work nearly as hard as people that grow up in a system where it's do or die. It's about finding a balance.
>Welfare is not socialism. It is basic human decency. What does it say that socialists were the first to install programs for it, though?
If you're American, what you call welfare, Europeans call a pittance. What the average American considers socialism, Europeans call a start to social safety.
Universal health care, a year of maternity leave, free education up to MA, even PhD level, those are what we would consider the very basic elements of a normal system. None of those got ruined after the transition from socialism to capitalism.
As I said, I don't oppose socialist policies, which benefit people, as long as they're reasonably feasible (and my definition of reasonably feasible is likely quite close to yours, except I think they're even more feasible in a capitalist system). I don't oppose socialism and communism in their ideal forms. But in real life, both are impossible, until either the people change or we invent Star Trek style replicators.### Human: >> Increased productivity? Playing games?
>Nope. Being able to do just about anything I do on my laptop, even when I don't have my laptop with me. Being able to use proper office-like software. Being able to do all kinds of stuff on the fly which comes in handy professionally, but wouldn't work nearly as well on smartphones even a few generations ago.
This is really all beside the point. None of this changes that companies utilize planned obsolescence. Sure there are real improvements alongside it but they utilize planned obsolescence all the same.
>>Only if you accept graphics as being important. Would better graphics on my alarm clock be an objective improvement? I can see the numbers just fine on my twenty year old alarm clock.
>If you do anything graphics related and you need to do something right then and there, yes, graphics are very important. Better-looking games? Yup, graphics are important there as well. If graphics weren't important in real life, we'd still be playing chess with scraps of paper with piece names written on them, not with carved wooden pieces for example.
Well, wooden pieces don't blow away in the wind.
>And I could argue that you only think you need an alarm clock because of consumerism. The majority of the world functions perfectly fine without alarm clocks, since they have the sun and/or roosters to wake them.
And you would be right. Sort of. It is capitalism that makes us schedule our lives down to the minute and force ourselves to wake so early that we need a blaring alarm.
>> It wouldn't be in people's best interest to slack off. That is just a pro-capitalist strawman.
>Again, it's not a straw-man but experience from my own country. You can argue all you want, but EXPERIENCE shows that people, who grow up in a system, where there is no penalty for slacking off, where slacking off can even be rewarded, if you just know the right people, will NOT work nearly as hard as people that grow up in a system where it's do or die. It's about finding a balance.
And as I said the material conditions and particular implementation of socialism won't be the same as Yugoslavia. We can learn from mistakes they made. Your experience doesn't prove socialism to be inherently flawed. Just that particular implementation. And my experience shows this particular implementation of capitalism to be flawed.
>>Welfare is not socialism. It is basic human decency. What does it say that socialists were the first to install programs for it, though?
>If you're American, what you call welfare, Europeans call a pittance. What the average American considers socialism, Europeans call a start to social safety.
Universal health care, a year of maternity leave, free education up to MA, even PhD level, those are what we would consider the very basic elements of a normal system. None of those got ruined after the transition from socialism to capitalism.
Sure, because they make sense. They just aren't something that capitalists care very much for. In fact the wealthiest capitalists tend to spend a great deal of energy trying to dismantle such programs.
>As I said, I don't oppose socialist policies, which benefit people, as long as they're reasonably feasible (and my definition of reasonably feasible is likely quite close to yours, except I think they're even more feasible in a capitalist system). I don't oppose socialism and communism in their ideal forms. But in real life, both are impossible, until either the people change or we invent Star Trek style replicators.
Welfare, no matter how generous, isn't socialist policy. And you can't possibly know actual socialism is impossible and in reality you have no reason to believe such a thing outside of propaganda. Because capitalism ISN'T working. There is enough to go around but people go without. Sure people are taken care of in some of the wealthier countries that have what you call socialist policies but what about the third world countries the capitalists in those wealthy countries exploit? In reality someone getting NHS isn't getting healthcare on a rich capitalist's dime, they're getting it off the backs of sweatshop workers in the third world.### Assistant: >This is really all beside the point. None of this changes that companies utilize planned obsolescence. Sure there are real improvements alongside it but they utilize planned obsolescence all the same.
In technology, planed obsolescence is irrelevant, since people will always trade up as soon as something better they can afford is available, which is way before any kind of planned obsolescence kicks in.
>Well, wooden pieces don't blow away in the wind.
Neither do stones that have piece markings scratched into them.
>And you would be right. Sort of. It is capitalism that makes us schedule our lives down to the minute and force ourselves to wake so early that we need a blaring alarm.
If you went to bed "with the chickens", you could wake up "with the chickens". It's capitalism that gives you the option of staying out late, because it keeps places open for you to go, because it's good business. In capitalism, you must resist temptation or suffer/enjoy the consequences. In socialism, there is no temptation.
> And as I said the material conditions and particular implementation of socialism won't be the same as Yugoslavia. We can learn from mistakes they made. Your experience doesn't prove socialism to be inherently flawed. Just that particular implementation. And my experience shows this particular implementation of capitalism to be flawed.
Show me a better implementation of socialism than what Yugoslavia had. I can't think of any. Also, the mistakes they made were what's necessary for socialism to function. You can't have factories and work for everyone AND competition from other countries. You can't have money for high salaries and retirement for everyone, if there is no money being made from trade.
> Sure, because they make sense. They just aren't something that capitalists care very much for. In fact the wealthiest capitalists tend to spend a great deal of energy trying to dismantle such programs.
Agreed. But this is what capitalists try to dismantle, not capitalism. Capitalism is opposed to well-being of people as much as communism is opposed to democracy. It's the implementation and the people doing the implementing that suck, not the idea itself.
>Welfare, no matter how generous, isn't socialist policy. And you can't possibly know actual socialism is impossible and in reality you have no reason to believe such a thing outside of propaganda. Because capitalism ISN'T working. There is enough to go around but people go without. Sure people are taken care of in some of the wealthier countries that have what you call socialist policies but what about the third world countries the capitalists in those wealthy countries exploit? In reality someone getting NHS isn't getting healthcare on a rich capitalist's dime, they're getting it off the backs of sweatshop workers in the third world.
You also have no reason to believe that socialism is possible outside of propaganda. Because socialism NEVER worked. Also, capitalism as a system is perfectly fine. It's the people that mess it up, just the same as with any other -ism.
When it comes to capitalism, you conflate capitalist and capitalism - the people in charge and the idea itself. However you don't do the same then talking about socialism, so that's a bit dishonest of you.
If you're employed, a part of your salary goes to health insurance. If you're unemployed, you either pay it yourself or the state does, depending on your situation. The state gets money from taxes, which it collects from people and companies in the state. So how exactly are 3rd world sweatshops included in this?
Also, with ~50 % personal income tax, yes, "rich capitalists" contribute a hefty amount.### Human: Ugh. You're too far gone to save. I'll part with this. Where did the rich capitalists get that income they are giving up 50% of to taxes? They didn't work for it. They just happened to have a piece of paper that says they own the capital that workers used to produce the wealth that capitalist enjoys.### Assistant: Not too far gone, just heavy supporter of personal responsibility. Nothing is preventing workers to collectively quit their jobs and set up a competing company, which they themselves will run. If everything a capitalist brings to the table is irrelevant, then they should have no problems whatsoever in doing just that. You can open a new LLC in literally 10 minutes online in my country. All you need is some 8000 € of start-up capital and that's it.
Also, inherited money =/= capitalists but rather feudalists. Entrepreneurs are capitalists. Those that open up new businesses are capitalists. Running "an established kingdom" isn't capitalism any more than the USSR, China or North Korea are communist.### Human: The thing stopping workers from starting their own company is that capitalists own all the capital already. The capitalists don't add anything but the capital but they are the only ones with capital because of capital accumulation. Most capitalists inherit their starting wealth. They might grow that wealth but that isn't really that difficult. You just supply workers with capital and let them do all the work. Notice that the few tags to riches stories involve someone who lucks into a new technology or new resource that they can claim because it hadn't been snatched up yet. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. Also note that neither of them were actually in rags to start.
And you say you are a proponent of personal responsibility and yet you advocate economic authoritarianism instead of economic democracy. You want personal responsibility yet you want workers to be beholden to capitalists.### Assistant: If you show me just one realistic theory, which demonstrates how a socialist country could possibly fund itself at least as well (read: not worse) as it does under capitalism, without depriving people of ANY rights and luxuries they currently have and without forcing them but rather through convincing them to switch systems, I swear I'll switch sides before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism.
Until then, you can preach socialism all you want, but you still won't convince anyone who considers themselves above robbing others for personal gain, regardless of the difference in wealth.### Human: You could try "Democracy At Work: A Cure for Capitalism" by Richard D. Wolff. I haven't read it yet myself but I've heard good things.### Assistant: Thanks, I'll check it out. |
### Human: CMV: I believe tenants should never have to pay a broker's fee when renting a new apartment### Assistant: If the broker is going to charge the landlord, s/he is just going to pass that on to you, whichever landlord you choose to rent from.### Human: I think the point is that the charge shouldn't be there at all. For lower end residential real estate in New York, brokers no longer provide a useful service. The internet has rendered brokers' listings databases obsolete.### Assistant: I don't think the landlord would agree.### Human: Landlord here. Do not agree. I just had a 3br unit in Lakeview, Chicago, IL going for $1750. I have a buddy that is a broker and I let him have a go at renting the apartment for me... he got it rented for $2400.. a year on year increase of 25% including the fee I paid. Brokers are absolutely the better way to go. I had to do no work and got fantastically qualified tenants.
Also, I do not care how it potentially effects you as a renter. I want people with money to live there. If it will financially ruin you to pay the fee I don't want you as a tenant. May sound harsh but this is a business not a charity. If I can make more money while doing less work and reducing the risk to my company and my properties the decision is a no brainer.
Edit: More words. Downvote all you want OP, you are getting an answer right from the source### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: The landlord pays the broker, with the tenant's money. This is how all brokering works. A real estate agent charges a commission on the sale of a house; this is paid by the seller, with the buyer's money. Ebay charges a fee to the seller when you buy an item; the seller pays it with the money they got from the buyer. And so on.### Assistant: [deleted] |
### Human: I believe anyone who claims to speak with God/spirits/ghosts should be treated as having a mental illness CMV.### Assistant: As a student I spent a fair bit of time hanging out with hardcore evangelical Christians. One of the things I learned is that they didn't use or interpret language the way you might expect. When someone would say "God told me that I should ... " what they actually meant was "I've come to the conclusion that God wants me to ... " In other words, they weren't actually hearing voices. Instead, they were communicating relatively benign thoughts or ideas in a kind of code which was originally quite disturbing before I figured out how to decode it. It might, for example, have been something as simple as reading some Bible passage and then just talking about it as if it were heard instead of read. It's hard to explain, but I'd say the short answer is that many people who claim to speak with God don't mean to be taken literally and I think would change their wording if they were really pressed. It's strange, yes, but probably not automatically a sign of mental illness when taken only at face value.### Human: As a former evangelical Christian, I can confirm that whenever I said, "God spoke to me," I really meant, "The answer kinda popped into my head as I read a certain Bible verse or let my mind wander or whatever."### Assistant: so...imo, as an atheist, this means you wont even give your own brain credit for your thought process?### Human: Certain parts of the country also say that "The devil is beating his wife" when it rains without clouds.
It doesn't really mean that they believed that. It is just the way they speak. Occasionally they might believe it.### Assistant: yeah, and angels bowling causes thunder. like i said before, there is a difference between an idiom and an ideology. |
### Human: CMV: /r/socialism is wrong. Bernie Sanders is genuinely a democratic socialist### Assistant: I feel as if you placed an argument for use of grammar then wrote 15 pages about politics that wasn't truly relevant. Sure, definitions change with time. But look at it this way, a million people say it your way a million people say it the other way, so we must use another way to assess the situation other than your posited method.
Grammar would dictate there is an adjective modifying a noun. Democratic socialism literally means, based on grammar rules of our language, that you have socialism with democratic elements. Social democrat is literally stating a democracy with socialist elements. When it is defined that way, you have to base the fundamental system being carried out as the noun and the individual's bias as the adjective. I'd say this clearly places Sanders as a social democrat, as he is not a socialist (and therefore cannot be looked at as a modification of a socialist, ie democratic socialist). He will not bring socialism, as defined as social ownership of production, and in no way can be defined as any [adjective] socialist. I get your point about culture building language, but grammar rules pretty much solve this situation in my opinion. The politics was pointless.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV: Modern culture, even "intellectual" culture values not offending people rather than truth. This is a bad thing### Assistant: Why should you deserve my time when you actively insult me? Why is the onus of civility not on those being uncivil?
It's called /r/CoonTown, not /r/RaceIssues. From the get go, its intent was to disparage, belittle, insult, and demean. So why would the "intellectuals" you call out be the ones to catch flak?
When you begin an argument by actively demeaning, insulting, and belittling someone else (for instance, by hosting said debates on a forum called "CoonTown"), you shouldn't be surprised when you lose the privilege of having your ideas thoughtfully considered by a wider audience.
There's a difference between telling someone inconvenient truths and actively insulting people.### Human: > Why should you deserve my time when you actively insult me? Why is the onus of civility not on those being uncivil?
Again, because its not a debate if you merely dismiss things that make you uncomfortable. The goal is to find truth, not find comfort.
> It's called /r/CoonTown, not /r/RaceIssues. From the get go, its intent was to disparage, belittle, insult, and demean. So why would the "intellectuals" you call out be the ones to catch flak?
Because they're the ones who claim to have the higher ground. They're the ones who'd laugh at someone for dismissing evolution simply because the bible says it didn't happen. For someone to claim the moral higher ground they should be using truth.
> There's a difference between telling someone inconvenient truths and actively insulting people.
And that's true, but the problem is that /everything/ that goes against preconceived notions is seen as "insulting".
I'd love nothing more than to see well-orchestrated responses with facts, figures and an earnest desire after the truth to combat those from /r/coontown and similar sites. Unfortunately all the internet seems to contain is facts and figures from those with those beliefs and well-done (note that I don't say true, I'm evaluating the quality of debate here, not the results) pieces and the only responses are purely dismissive. It makes the racists/homophobes/xenophobes/etc. look much better than those of us who do not share their beliefs
∆ though for the point about insulting### Assistant: > Again, because its not a debate if you merely dismiss things that make you uncomfortable. The goal is to find truth, not find comfort.
I think that's your main mistake; a *debate* doesn't occur every time people disagree on something. An actual debate requires all parties involved to do be willing to discuss in good faith; it requires all parties to be at least interested in finding truth. You don't calmly entertain the notion of you being "a cock sucking bastard cunt", because nobody spurring this kind of thing is interested in debating them. They're not interest in truth or discussion. Acknowledging them is only validating their viewpoint because that's all they're interested in; validating their viewpoint.### Human: > Acknowledging them is only validating their viewpoint because that's all they're interested in; validating their viewpoint.
But that's the things though with most of these "uncomfortable" topics, its always the ones with the unpopular and less accepted beliefs that have the well sourced facts. It makes those of us who don't share them look bad because all that most of them will say is a dismissive "that's sexist" or what have you which is not a valid reason to dismiss an idea.### Assistant: > its always the ones with the unpopular and that have the well sourced facts
I do not find this to be true and I'm interested in seeing actual examples. What I more generally encounter, however, is people using whatever graphic they can find in order to support their view point; this generally include, knowingly or not, misrepresenting data, jumping to unsupported conclusion and over simplifying issues. That's because they're not interested by the truth, they're interested in supporting their beliefs.
> which is not a valid reason to dismiss an idea
I'd argue that it is; sexism is a bias and biases are huge holes in any argument. An argument based on a racist ideology is bound to be flawed.### Human: > I do not find this to be true and I'm interested in seeing actual examples
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2f8cpu/til_john_langley_creator_of_the_tv_show_cops/ck6yqh5?context=3
Stuff like that for example
Notice the quality of the debate rather than the content. Those who tend to be in favor of the racist comments posted used facts rather than feelings. Now, whether or not their facts are truly supported you'd have to dig in quite a bit deeper.### Assistant: There's two problems here, beside a lot of the data being a bit weird.
Firstly, this isn't exactly a racist argument. While he's not particularly curious about the how of these statistics, the guy isn't arguing that black people commit more crime *because they're black* either. That's an important distinction. I'm aware blacks commit more crime, but I'm also aware there's a stack of other factors in play which make the issue far more complex from poverty to anomia. I don't see a graphic showing disproportionate levels of crime and jump to the conclusion that their race is predisposing them to crime. That's a leap made possible by a racist mindset; because you already "know" the answer.
Secondly, it's a bit of a weird example. While the main post is rather well supported (with some glaring exceptions) what we see here is a few thoughtful responses in a sea of shitty stuff. There's a lot of racist arguments going utterly unsupported in this very thread or using the evidence presented to support their worldview despite a lot of it being arguable. |
### Human: CMV: Why should we keep severely crippled/mentally disabled children alive and nurture them when they won't become competent members of society?### Assistant: > If these people cannot fully contribute to society, why expend the resources to keep them alive
This isn't the metric on which we assess human life. The very fact that we talk about 'human rights' indicates that we assign a unique dignity to the human person. You're going to have to argue that this is mistaken and actually people have a 'worth' equal to their 'contribution'.
> Keeping these people alive also causes emotional and fiscal stress on the families
And forcibly killing them doesn't put emotional stress on the family?
> I have an extremely morbid sense of realism
As an aside, your position here has nothing in common with realism, don't label it as such. 'Realism' refers to plenty of ideas, but this isn't one of them. This would be closer to something like 'instrumental rationality'. Calling it 'realism' just distorts the discussion.### Human: Yes, I am wrong, that this isn't realism. Keeping someone alive for longer may exacerbate emotional pain. With my grandfather in the hospital, it was killing me to see how he could not communicate, or when he could, appear not to know anything or anyone.
I still find it hard to judge humans just for their human being. Having a sever mental disability changes that. I understand that what im saying is horrid to some. But past the point that they literally will not be able to do anything, it's hard to understand that. I see now it's hard to assess their standings especially if they cannot communicate.
In my aunt's group home there are a few other mentally dissabled that I have gotten to know and they do work much like my aunt. I would not wish what I say onto them because I have seen what they can do. This also makes me think that I am 'jumping the gun' Because I have no idea what state they were in as children.### Assistant: > Because I have no idea what state they were in as children.
Well that's kind of the problem, isn't it? It seems horrific to kill someone who hasn't in the past and couldn't possibly consent to such a thing, *especially* if they have a chance of one day being able to consent.### Human: I see that now, how crucial it it is to look into the future.### Assistant: Then you should award this person a
delta. |
### Human: I think Twitter is a horrible medium that's kept alive by corporations that feel forced into using it and the world would be better without it. CMV.### Assistant: I'm a big Twitter user. I read everything in my timeline every day.
The only thing wrong about Twitter is that people don't unfollow spammers, bots, and uninteresting people. I have colleagues and friends who just basically set up one of those websites that will automatically tweet a news article for them every 4 hours or so. That is just so boring.
I think there's quite a lot of insights that we can get every day from Twitter. Follow interesting people. Follow Barrack Obama, John Gruber, David Pogue, presidents around the world, writers, poets, and other interesting people you see. If you keep following the dumb celebrities you will not be part of the solution.
Regardless of whether there's Twitter or not, there's always people in the world who say stupid stuff. The best way to fix that is to ignore them. Sadly in this world there are a lot of other stupid people who listen to the stupid celebrities and think everything they say is gospel.
Don't be a part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Educate people around you and don't let them watch and listen to junk.### Human: This is what I was thinking as well! I never used to be into Twitter, because I tried to make it just like my Facebook (aka 400 people that I don't care about vs. 90 people who I do care about). That was a mistake. If you follow people who consistently post funny or interesting things, Twitter is rarely boring.
Unfollow those people who post every five minutes with sub-par content. If you keep your feed filled with "omg so bored...what to do tonight???? #bored #talktome" then I see why it's useless.
As a recommendation for great, witty content - I suggest Ken Jennings. He tweets regularly but not incessantly, and almost every tweet is funny.### Assistant: > just like my Facebook (aka 400 people that I don't care about
I know it's pretty common, but IMO that's not how Facebook is intended to be used either. I think it works best when it's used more like the way you're talking about Twitter: only follow/friend people whose posts you actually care about most of the time.
I'm not Facebook friends with anyone I haven't met in real life, and I have no qualms about just ignoring a request from someone I've met but don't care to hear from. If someone posts stupid shit on a regular basis I either hide or unfriend them. As a result I have none of the Facebook feed quality problems I hear people moan about all the time; every time I go there, there's something of interest to me.### Human: I don't get why people get so weird about not being close to their 400 friends in Facebook. Is it just that the word "Friends" bothers them? Do they call everyone in the contacts list on their phones?
I see Facebook as a visual (albeit deceptive) way to keep up with people without the layer of formality involved in sending a letter or making a phone call. I can find people I haven't seen in person in 10 years and wish them a Happy Birthday and keep a cordial relationship. Without Facebook, I probably would have forgotten about a lot of people who might become important in my future.
I text, call, and visit with my close friends. For them and everyone else, there's also Facebook.### Assistant: If I don't have your phone number already I probably don't have you on FB. I use FB as an additional way to interact with my friends (especially now that we don't meet up at the bar every week).
I have had a few people say I'm a Facebook snob. I think those people take it too seriously.### Human: I think you're taking it too seriously.### Assistant: Nah. I've got plenty of amazing people in my life. I share things with them on FB. I don't need to know how that girl I worked with in 02 is eating a bagel and it's "oh so yum". |
### Human: CMV: Wealthy People (especially in America) are unfairly demonized by the general public.### Assistant: Are videos allowed in r/CMV? If they are you should watch [this video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#t=97) on wealth inequality. It is 5 min. long but well worth the watch. There is a chance you might be underestimating how badly distributed wealth actually is in this country.
EDIT: I just realized i didn't directly challenge your view. The reason this is bad for our country is because
"1) Economic inequality can give wealthier people an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of others.
2) Economic inequality can undermine the fairness of political institutions.
3) Economic inequality undermines the fairness of the economic system itself.
4) Workers, as participants in a scheme of cooperation that produces national income, have a claim to a fair share of what they have helped to produce."
-[Source](http://ideas.ted.com/the-4-biggest-reasons-why-inequality-is-bad-for-society/)
[Don't believe TED talks?](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2014/12/is-inequality-good-or-bad-for-growth.html)
[Dont believe the Economist?](http://go.galegroup.com.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=umn_wilson&tabID=T004&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA122622864&&docId=GALE|A122622864&docType=GALE&role=) I think this one is behind a paywall (Thanks University access!). but the gist is.. "After two decades of widening inequality, the last few years have brought us massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest, at the expense of investment in infrastructure and the education, child care, and income supports that would help raise less well-off kids to be productive adults." It might be a leap to say all that.. but the author is an Economist Prof at U of Mass -Lowell.### Human: Thank you for sharing that, it really puts into perspective on how bad our income equality is. It is where decades of trickle-down economics have gotten us.
Giving the largest corporations tax breaks is a laughably bad idea.### Assistant: > Giving the largest corporations tax breaks is a laughably bad idea.
You'd be hard-pressed to find too many serious economists who don't think corporation taxes are a bad idea. This has nothing to do with "trickle-down" or regressive tax policy (in fact I'm rather in agreement with you on the idiocy of trickle-down as applied), but the fact that taxing corporations (vs raising income taxes) introduces both additional tax-code complexity and perverse incentives around investment (which anyone with any understanding of economics will tell you is a good thing for a society). I've never heard a single solid reason that corporate taxes should be preferred to higher taxes in income (incl capital gains) in certain brackets.
This has no bearing on the extent of redistribution or the total tax base (as you can construct a sequence of rises in income tax at the appropriate brackets to balance out the disappearance of corporate taxes and keep a similar distribution of tax rates).### Human: >I've never heard a single solid reason that corporate taxes should be preferred to higher taxes in income (incl capital gains) in certain brackets.
It makes tax evasion harder, if corporations are taxed too and investigated as a matter of course.### Assistant: > It makes tax evasion harder, if corporations are taxed too and investigated as a matter of course.
I don't see how this follows at all. It should be obvious that taxation of an entity is not required to audit it.### Human: It removes an option to accumulate profits without taxation. |
### Human: CMV: Libertarians should establish their own experimental society, to crash-test their ideology.### Assistant: Where? All viable land is claimed, save for some weird null zones on the Croatia-Serbia border which would not exactly make a country. There's not really a place anarchists could build a society free from government involvement.### Human: Mars.
Give me the Delta. 😀### Assistant: In danger of falling afoul of Rule 5 there, aren't you?
But as international law stands, all space missions must be organised or endorsed by a sovereign state. Who would sponsor an anarchist experiment on another planet? They would gain little and stand to lose much### Human: How do all space missions have to be organized or endorsed by a sovereign state?
Elon Musk claims he will go to Mars before NASA.### Assistant: Outer Space Treaty says so. Look it up, I guess.### Human: If someone privately funds a space expedition to Mars, sets up a privately funded colony, then renounces citizenship of their earth country and declares their colony a new country, earth government's have no legitimate authority to infringe on that colonies sovereignty regardless of whether or not the expedition had to be approved by an earth government.### Assistant: I assume they could always drop an asteroid on the Martian Libertarians, if they feel the need to be violently petty.### Human: We'll be ready and we'll sling it right back at them.### Assistant: and that is how we neatly exterminate both populations, thus accidentally solving all humanity's problems. |
### Human: CMV: I think that beauty pageants objectify women and harm their perception in society.### Assistant: Hi, male feminist here as well. I believe in something called "Free Market Feminism". In that, whatever women choose to do, they should be able to do it. Beauty Pageants aren't mandatory, no one is putting a gun to a woman's head forcing her to do a beauty pageant. These are things that these particular women find empowering and that's okay. As long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.### Human: OP isn't asking to make them illegal though. He's only criticizing them. I'd say that falls well within the realm of "Free Market Feminism." In fact, since "Free Market Feminism" relies on individual choices instead of government intervention, then an individual criticizing something that he thinks is demeaning towards women - *without* calling for it to be banned - is *exactly* what "Free Market Feminism" relies on.### Assistant: Entirely, but I'm saying the fact that there's such a large market for it, run by women, and that there's another large market equivalent for men, would imply that this is something that women find empowering, yes? I might be wrong with my causation here, so do correct that if I'm wrong.### Human: >would imply that this is something that women find empowering, yes?
No, not at all. It only implies that women enjoy partaking and viewing. That says nothing about empowerment. The fact that a program is primarily viewed by women or participated in by women doesn't mean anything about empowerment.### Assistant: So then why do women choose to participate? Performing in beauty pageants costs more money than it makes for most participants. So why would they participate in something that costs money if not for enjoyment?
I go to school with a lot of Southern belles who grew up with this culture and they love it. I even know girls who wanted to do beauty pageants even when their parents told them not to.### Human: For fun. Enjoyment is not empowerment. I play tennis for fun, not because it gives me power. I watch TV shows for fun, not for empowerment.### Assistant: I think that's exactly what empowerment is for: being able to do what you think is fun and/or constructive. If we said women shouldn't watch TV shows for some reason or another, that'd be oppressive. Same with beauty pageants.### Human: OP isn't suggesting we ban beauty pageants; he's only criticizing them and the impact they have on society. |
### Human: CMV: I'm uncomfortable using ADHD medication in order to treat my disorder because I think it changes who I naturally am and makes me more like someone who I am not.### Assistant: > I feel as if by taking medication I'm giving up my identity
You're not, though. You're seeing what your identity is when it's modified by a certain chemical. You on coffee is still you - it's just that your cortisol levels are higher. You on pot is still you - it's just that your... I guess THC levels are higher? You cannot become someone you're not - you can modify the person you are by adding or subtracting chemicals or other influences, but the idea that you're signing off on your identity by changing yourself is nonsensical.
You are whatever occurs in the sphere of your body and mind. If something odd occurs, that's still you. If you have low blood sugar and are cranky, that's still you, and you should be held accountable for yelling at your wife. If you have a thorn in your thumb and are flooded with chemical signals of pain, that's still you.
The only reason you're considering this is that it's medicine. Well, medicine is just a chemical, like all the neurotransmitters you already have inside you.### Human: Recreational drugs and neurotoxins are also "just chemicals, like all the neurotransmitters you already have inside you".
Taking psychoactive medication absolutely does change the way you feel and behave. That is the point. I think the way you feel and behave is who you are.### Assistant: Then does having low blood sugar turn you into someone else? Does it change your identity to be sleep-deprived? How far does this go? Are we willing to say that any modification of behavior strips you of your identity?### Human: Everyone has experienced having low blood sugar and being sleep deprived, and they know they can eat or sleep and be restored. People take psychiatric medications for years, and we are not sure how they work.
Maybe you are disagreeing with OP specifically when they say "makes me more like someone who I am not"? I also disagree with that statement, because I don't think there is a "core person" to compare them too. However when they are on psychiatric drugs, those drugs have to be considered of part of them.### Assistant: > Everyone has experienced having low blood sugar and being sleep deprived, and they know they can eat or sleep and be restored. People take psychiatric medications for years, and we are not sure how they work.
I'm not advocating any drug or saying that we do or don't know how they work. I'm not saying they won't do damage. I'm not saying any of these things are safe - hell, hypoglycemia can kill. But I am saying that in OP's model of identity, taking drugs is really no more problematic _for his identity_ than is eating a candy bar and getting a sugar rush.
> I also disagree with that statement, because I don't think there is a "core person" to compare them too.
I mean, neither do I. A few days ago I was denying that there's any self except by convention and citing Hume and Buddhism. But OP has a particular model of identity and it's causing him problems. I don't see any reason we have to tear out the floorboards to address this particular problem, though - we can work within this view of stable identity.
I'm saying it ought not cause him difficulties, because taking drugs is just a modification of who he is, comparable to many other changes that would allow him to retain his identity. If I cut off his leg, I suspect he'd still think he's the same person. If I gave him more beers than he could handle, I suspect he'd still think he's the same person. I could put him in a dungeon and torture him for years, and he'd probably still view his teenage self as his self.
I'm not saying the changes are good or even survivable. I'm not saying they're well-understood. I'm saying that, using what I believe to be his model of identity, drugs don't cause the change in identity that he fears. We can see this by noting his identity (as he defines it) would likely survive through even more drastic changes, so there's no reason to single out medication as an identity-thieving villain. |
### Human: CMV:I don't believe members of the military are anything special and I disagree with veteran idolization.### Assistant: Former US Navy here. I think the problem is the community you grew up in. I am guessing most these people have military parents or family members. Even after 9 years in the Navy I left with some of your same sentiments. The majority of the military doesn't see a battlefield and even if they do end up in Afghanistan it doesn't mean they are getting shot at or fighting the taliban. However, regardless of what you do in the military you are basically writing a blank check to your country with your life. If you seperate that concept from the "ra ra" navy town stuff, the glorification of the military at baseball games and football games and any personal views about what our government does with these "checks" I think you may at least see the root of the countries admiration that has kind of gotten carried away.### Human: >regardless of what you do in the military you are basically writing a blank check to your country with your life
Try to think of this, OP. People who sign up for the military understand that their job entails risk, but are willing to protect the country/public in spite of that risk. In a way, we thank the military for making a sacrifice that we ourselves would not be willing to make.
Also, consider that our reverence is likely an extension of the past, where men were conscripted and "forced" into an environment of death and war. They were martyrs for national security, and even ignoring that, "human sacrifices" that their government made under its will. Perhaps we shouldn't honour every modern, common person who enters the army, and perhaps we shouldn't even honour those who recently died on the job, but honouring past veterans acknowledges that they were a "human sacrifice" made under the government.
Conscripted veterans are/were, in essence, innocent victims. Think of how often we hold remembrance ceremonies for Columbine, or the Sandy Hook kids, or victims of 9/11. This is no different.### Assistant: Is it really to protect the country at this point? I have such a hard time accepting that our 13 year war in Afghanistan is really to project the sovereignty of the United States but rather to line the pockets of the military contractors and the rest of the military-industrial complex. Thats my whole problem with the military culture in the US, that is everyone turning a blind eye to the real reason we are fighting overseas.
EDIT: I always found Eishenhower's farewell address interesting. He warns us about the military-industrial complex and to avoid it. We didn't heed his warning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY### Human: You seem to narrowly focused on the word "protect" like it's the only thing a military does. The military serves. It does numerous things from R&D, disaster relief, foreign aid, diplomacy, rescue operations, all the way down to the principal directive of protecting. The military has a greater diplomatic mission in many major nations than the US State Department. There may be a lot of things the military does that you may not agree with, but remember this, no one in the military decides where we go and who we fight. That's your elected officials in charge of that. So by extension, the military goes where the People want them to go. So don't include "the military" when you really mean Corporations, Banks, and Politicians.### Assistant: I get all of the other roles, but that wasnt why we spent 6 trillion dollars and sent close to seven thousand US soldiers to their deaths. When most people talk about bravery thats what I think most people are referring to, and the War on Terror seems to be the primary responsibility of our military at this point. And I never placed the blame for that on the military itself, I criticized the military-industrial complex, and the military culture in the US for being completely ignorant to the military industrial complex itself. |
### Human: I believe that The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of music and the cult of personality around them is not only godawful and petulant, but also destructive to individual thought. CMV.### Assistant: First, consider the difference between "best," "greatest," and "favorite."
The best of something is that which can be demonstrated the most fully accomplish the goals of whatever that something is. Determining the best of something is... difficult, to say the last.
One's "favorite" thing is entirely subjective. You may love a song you know is terrible simply because of an emotional connection to it.
But "greatest?" That takes into account innovation, impact, and legacy as well as people's personal favorites and what qualities make something the best or not.
I think the people you are bothered by are conflating all those terms. The Beatles are one of the greatest music acts of the past century (In the same ranks as Armstrong and Dylan). Because they are great, the people you're bothered by might assume that they are therefore the best. And from there, it's easy to see why they might consider a band they believe to be the best to be their personal favorite.
I hope that much made sense. If not, I'll try to clarify. But for now let me explain what makes the Beatles great and respond to your points.
**Point 1**
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you, personally, believe that popular music is inherently bad? I would say that that is incorrect. There is plenty of incredible pop music. *Billie Jean* is one of the most perfect songs ever constructed (which is again different from "best" or "greatest.") Bob Dylan is popular, as is Eminem. You're into metal? Awesome. I'm sure most of the bands you listen to are still in the 75th percentile in terms of popularity of metal bands. (I'm talking *all* metal bands, including the ones playing open-mic nights in Providence).
Within this point you also criticize the Beatle's innovation. That is the opposite of the consensus of the music community at-large. Here's a few things they did:
They were innovators in the scope of theory that could be used in pop music. Their progressions, even in early pop songs, are considerably complex, as are the harmonies they use. It's hard to tell, since it's pop, but that just means the innovation is successful. As one example, it took sound engineers decades to determine what the opening chord of *A Hard Day's Night* is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hard_Day's_Night_(song)#Opening_chord).
They created the Music Video (or at least refined it to its current use).
For studio techniques, they either created or refined: ADT, back-masking, tuned feedback, splied audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multi-tracking, compression, and phase-shifting.
The song "Hey Jude" was the spark which led to FM radio becoming the primary way to transmit music.
They invented the concept album with *Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band*. And beyond that, they invented the concept of an album being a work in-and-of itself, rather than simply a collection of songs. Without that, modern rap is entirely different, and Pink Floyd are nothing.
They started the whole lyrics-printed-on-the-album thing.
They started blurring the lines between simple popular music and innovative progressive movement, which is the basis for pretty much every wave of music since then.
There's more, but there are a few big ones.
**Point 2**
Fair point. But remember that the Beatles are something of a fore-father to *all* music genres of today. And besides that, if the people you're hanging out with really just belittle you for stating your opinion, then they either aren't very nice + don't understand why they themselves hold the opinions that they do, or you don't state your opinions very kindly.
As for the "not really knowing what good music is," part, I again would like to remind you that much of the respect the Beatles garner comes from their influence and innovation, not necessarily the quality of their (especially early) songs. If you have a problem with a particular song and can explain why, most people who understand music well will hear you out without belittling you.
**Point 3**
You mention that *Let it Be* and *Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band* are heavily criticized for being failed attempts at remaining relevant. That's a fringe opinion, to say the least. Both albums contain some of the Beatles greatest hits, and both were incredibly influential both at the time they were released and throughout history since then. What music critics do you know that "revile" SPLHCB."
**Point 4**
I totally agree. The popularity of music should not influence one's enjoyment of it. That being said, it does seem like the popularity of the Beatles is poisoning your own ability to enjoy their music. Granted, that's probably because your post is about them not deserving praise, so you're going to have to talk about them getting praise... but still.
But! Keep in mind that if you're discussing "greatness," then popularity *is* important. And that is simply because influence is an important factor in greatness, and the more widely-consumed a artists work is, the more influence they have. If the Beatles had been making all those innovations I mentioned earlier but doing it for nobody to hear, they simply would not be as great.
In conclusion, don't bother trying to like them if you don't. Feel free to criticize McCartney's lyrics or Starr's drumming. That's all fair. But please try to understand the importance of what they did. That way, when you get into discussions about them, you can at the very least say "I respect them for their influence BUT..."### Human: If anything popularity is the only truly objective rating of music. If music is subjective then the thing that is liked the most is the best in the majority of subjective opinions and generally we take consensus to mean something.
This is why I think that there is no objective way to measure music at all but to pooh hoo music because it is popular is snobbery.### Assistant: >If anything popularity is the only truly objective rating of music. If music is subjective then the thing that is liked the most is the best in the majority of subjective opinions and generally we take consensus to mean something.
That's a horrible way to rate music. Popularity has a lot more to do with timing, luck, exposure, and culture than quality of music.### Human: Hence why I said there was no good way to objectively rate music.### Assistant: There are much better ways than that though, complexity, technical skill, creativity/innovation, etc.### Human: There's no way to add those up though, that's what I am saying. Popularity is objective, you can count it (in a number of ways depending on the question you ask) and use it to statistically infer what the most popular things are. You can do this with a lot dog things to gain deep insight into animal, and human behaviour and preferences. It's crude, especially when you are trying to decipher something beyond fitness but it can work.
You can't count any of the things you mentioned. Popularity can.### Assistant: Quantifiability is not the only characteristic of a good metric.
Phrenology was full of quantifiable parameters, but that didn't make it the best metric to predict the quality of a future employee at hiring. Potential to be a good worker is better assessed by "uncountable" characteristics.
And even if quantifiability makes a good metric, popularity has quite the bad track record as a metric throughout recent history.### Human: I am just saying that popularity in some form is the best quanitifiable metric for art and it is not a very good metric. People who want objective opinions about art may in fact miss the role of the viewer entirely.
And popularity doesn't just mean number of plays, number of listens, how much money. I think popularity could mean anything from how many people have sex to it to how many people can't get it out of their heads after hearing it. |
### Human: CMV: I am a Sanders supporter, I'd rather vote for Trump than Clinton.### Assistant: It sounds like your core reason for liking Sanders is a sense of his authenticity, and your core reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton are (a) the sense that he is more trustworthy than she is, and (b) the sense that as a (frankly) big-mouthed outsider he will bring about needed change. In response, I'd suggest that Clinton and Trump are more similar than you might imagine and that the change he brings might not be the kind you would welcome.
**(1) Trump is shady as hell**
Trump's career from start to finish has been marred by exactly the same kind of corrupt rent-seeking and completely opaque / shady dealings that Clinton has engaged in.
It has become common practice for presidential candidates to release information about their finances and tax returns. Trump has so far refused to do this. You know why? Because his returns for *the last 12 years* are being audited. That raises red flags. As ABC news [explains:](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-excuse-releasing-tax-returns-puzzles-experts-37239115)
> Tax experts say that explanation has them scratching their heads — emboldening Trump critics who argue that the celebrity businessman-turned-candidate's personal finances remain unexamined.
> The odds of being randomly audited every year for a decade is vanishingly small — and Trump's statement that "four or five" years of his tax returns are actively being audited raised even more questions.
> The IRS's normal statute of limitations for an audit is three years — though that time frame is extended in instances of substantial underreporting and there is no time limit on reviews in the event of fraud.
In 2009 Trump lent his [image and name](http://i.imgur.com/1K23jGt.png) to a highly-priced condo development in Baja. Investors poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into it, many on the basis of their faith in the guy. The investment failed when the developer ran out of money. Trump collected his fee for using his name, but the investors were left on the hook when it turned out that Trump actually had nothing at all to do with the development.
You may be thinking that those people are just idiots for having faith in Trump -- but it raises a question: just how much is his name worth?
That turns out to actually be a very substantive question, since Trump has on multiple occasions tried to inflate reports of his net worth by valuing his "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments" (of the type just described) at $3.3 billion. That raises a lot of questions, given the way the Baja condos turned out. If (according to his *own* account) up to $3 billion of Trump's worth is from his name, and his name is sometimes actually worthless, then just [who are we really dealing with here?](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02866/draxos_2866179k.jpg)
Of course, there's good reason (besides Baja) to believe that the $3 billion figure is wildly exaggerated. In 2005, the New York Times reported that Trump's actual net worth was only ~250 million based on information from sources with direct knowledge of his finances. Trump sued for defamation and lost. He appealed and lost again.
**(2) Trump is every bit as ideologically bankrupt as Clinton**
Clinton is notorious for meticulously focus-grouping all of her viewpoints and "adjusting" as needed, giving her the appearance of someone totally hollow.
Trump has a reputation for just saying what he believes.
The thing is, Trump has flip-flopped multiple times and in the same way as Clinton has. The only difference is that Trump does it even more rapidly and more capriciously than Clinton.
He's playing exactly the same game as Clinton. He wants to win, so he just says whatever he thinks will help him do that.
The dangers of electing someone like that are:
(a) They don't really have much sense of responsibility for succeeding at any specific agenda for the simple reason that they don't really have an agenda beyond personal enrichment and self-glorification, and
(b) They definitely *do* have an agenda for personal enrichment and self-glorification. You think Trump is satisfied with his current wealth? He may be rich, but he's far from the world's richest. What better perch from which to rent-seek than the most powerful political position in the world?
To elaborate a little further on (a) above, go to Trump's website. He has reasonably detailed plans for the 3-5 positions he has taken. But there are glaring holes -- important issues where we just don't know what, if anything, Trump would do.
What would Trump (founder of the now-defunct and outlawed Trump University) do about the trillion-dollar student loan debt bubble? We don't know.
What would Trump do in the Middle East? His site is silent on it, he's been endorsed by Sarah Pailin to "Kick some ISIS ass," and Reddit think's he'll be a pacifist for some reason.
Trump thinks the EPA is an impediment to economic growth. OK. But what is his plan to balance economic growth with the need to confront climate change? *shrugs*
**(3) Trump's temperament and political inexperience are dangerous**
Trump in his business career has gained a reputation for aggressive and often frivolous lawsuits. He once filed suit against Bill Maher for making a joke on-air about Trump's ridiculous overzealousness during the whole birther controversy.
He also has not, shall we say, been steeped in global affairs over the past 30 years.
If you combine a petty, vindictive, and impulsive personality with a lack of nuanced understanding of world politics and then add in the world's most powerful military, then you start to worry.
Trump might have thought that his comments about Muslims were just lulzy, but US hegemony is built on a network of alliances. If you piss off the 1.6 billion Muslims all over the world you stand an excellent chance of creating very real practical problems for the US.
Trump is keen on confrontation with China. I also personally think the US needs to do more to prevent Chinese pushiness in the South China Sea, but it's an extremely delicate affair with *very* high stakes, and I don't know if I want a guy with Trump's personality in charge of managing it. More than one war has started over nautical misunderstandings.
The military, by the way, is one area where Congressional moderation *isn't* so effective. Obama managed to get the US involved in the Libyan civil war without Congressional approval. And Obama's a guy who has been faulted for, if anything, being excessively restrained.
In contrast, Clinton even before she served as Secretary of State was extremely knowledgeable from her past political life and studies.
----
tl;dr Trump and Clinton are both shady interest seekers with ideological osteoporosis. But Clinton has greater political experience and knowledge, has a clearer strategic vision and agenda, and is less likely to start a massive, possibly armed confrontation with China and/or completely alienate the US from the rest of the world.### Human: Well said. I also think Hillary is a corporate puppet and we would end up with more of the same as today. With Trump - war with someone for sure. Broken down domestic and international relationships.### Assistant: Trump is the only canidate who is willing to work with Russia instead of maintaining a cold war attitude. You think a no-fly zone is more peaceful than international cooperation?### Human: Obama was willing to work with Russia too. Turns out Russia has dreams of regional hegemony and you have to confront them on that. You think Russia invaded Ukraine because Obama wasn't working with them enough?### Assistant: The did it because we staged a coup### Human: I'm not the smartest guy out there so could you go into a little more detail?### Assistant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution### Human: That seems pretty far from a coup, and I don't see how we're responsible for it anyway. |
### Human: CMV: A well run social safety net and business regulation is better for the lower and middle class than trickle down economics### Assistant: >trickle down economics
Could define what you believe this theory suggests? Isn't it purely an invention of the political sphere that sounds like economics?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I agree- I think part of republican resistance to this is that government programs, by definition, will not be well run.### Human: Corporate bureaucracies in the real world are no more and no less efficient than the typical government bureaucracy. The notion that private enterprise is inherently more efficient than the public sector is itself a political invention.### Assistant: Don't agree with this. Private enterprise must become more efficient or else it will be replaced. Supply chain isn't up to snuff? Better work on it or another company will outpace you. Who is the governments competition? No one, thus no incentive to become efficient, and arguably cases where inefficiency is preferred.### Human: Counterargument from me on private market waste and inefficiency here.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2n4ctp/cmv_a_well_run_social_safety_net_and_business/cmaluzt#cmaqhfd |
### Human: CMV: I feel as if North and South Korea should resume the war for the sake of reunification and prosperity in the big picture.### Assistant: You say that long term a unified Korea would be an economic powerhouse, and that may be true. But short term it would completely devastate the South Korean economy, potentially crashing the Asian financial market and leading to a world wide recession. The amount of hardship this could create is immeasurable. Even if it doesn't create a global ripple, it would devastate the quality of living for all South Koreans. Why is that our responsibility? Why should my brother, who is just now graduating from university have to potentially die in the army, and if he doesn't face a broken and cripple economy? Why should my father, who is retired and finally seeing a bit of peace after 50 years of dedication to the South Korean military, suddenly have to lose his home and his savings? Why do we, who have worked for decades to build this country from nothing, who have lost our brothers and sisters and parents under our own oppressive regimes, but who protested and worked and struggled to make something better, give up everything that we have for our distant cousins who accepted their dictators with open arms? They chose what they have. I feel bad for them. I pity them. I wish them a better future in which they overcome their hardships and build a better country for themselves. But it is not our responsibility to give it to them at the expense of everything we have worked for.### Human: I mean, obviously we wouldn't immediately intermingle the economies. We can keep the two as separate countries or maybe unite the two parts under the same government but keep the economies separated until the northern economy raises to a decent level of power before actually merging the economies. If South Korea had an economic boom within a twenty year time frame then North Korea can probably do the same, and we'd allow companies from South Korea or even overseas to request work be done for North Korea (cheap labor and whatnot).### Assistant: >If South Korea had an economic boom within a twenty year time frame then North Korea can probably do the same
Do you have any idea what Korea was like during that boom? Do you know what policies were put in place, what conditions inflicted, what people had to go through to create "The Asian Miracle"?
This is not sarcastic or rhetorical. I really would like to know what awareness you have of that event before I respond.### Human: I know that the country was under the dictator of Park Chung-hee and the South and the North were quite similar in terms of human rights. I'm not TOO knowledgeable, in all honesty, although I know that it wasn't all fun and games during that time either. However, with China and the US on their side (with China, I'm assuming they will because I feel as if it's more plausible than people think) they can probably undergo the same economic boom if you offset regard towards human rights and help from other countries.### Assistant: Yea, that's the basics. And the thing is, I don't know that that type of boom CAN happen without human rights violations. The boom was the product of enforced 18 hour work days, 6 days a week, for years on end, working for pennies. Lot's of cheap labor produced a lot of goods that were cheap and in high demand internationally. To his credit, General Park was smart about how he reinvested the income, doing so for the legitimate benefit of the people, but the means by which he produced that were borderline inhuman, and would not stand the international spotlight that today's tech. would bring to the situation.
Yes, If NK received major financial support from China and USA, it could be propped up and jump started without having to go through that. But what we are talking about in that scenario is outside countries literally spending billions, possibly trillions, of dollars to create a fully modern infrastructure in a country that doesn't currently have one. And I'm definitely not going to argue that that would be a bad thing, and I'll certainly admit that if China and the USA collaborated, they could likely afford it....but why the hell would they? Why would China and the USA suddenly agree to work together on this when they haven't shown the ability to work together to that degree on anything else? Why do you think this would be politically feasible in America in an age when Americans are growing increasingly tired of foreign intervention and expenditure?
So what you are basically saying is that in SK we should go to war and risk the lives of our brothers in the military and our sisters and mothers and fathers in Seoul (which would certainly receive heavy shelling no matter how quick and well the war went), in the hopes that maybe China and the US could come together in a way they never have in history to help jump start Northern Economy so that it doesn't drag us down and devastate our economy in the best case scenario and crash the entire Asian market in the worst case scenario.
I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't seem to me like a very well formulated plan.### Human: Let me ask you this - is what you mentioned much worse than the atrocities that goes on RIGHT NOW? Sure, it sounds terrible compared to the standards in South Korea today. But the forced labor that they already do as we speak? The people who've been indoctrinated since they were kids to work while praising Dear Leader in everything they do? Of course, we can't, with a snap of a finger, raise the human rights conditions in North Korea to that of the developed and modernized world. But if South Korea were to gain control over the northern half of the peninsula, they can make the situation an infinite times better by closing off the concentration camps and simply telling the populace, "you won't be enslaved your entire life serving Kim Jong-un. You will be able to work hard for YOU and your FAMILY." That is far better than the things that goes on there right now and I think we have a moral obligation to end whatever goes on in those camps. It's atrocious.
Seoul would be shelled, but the retaliation would render them unable to do so over a short duration of time. Perhaps the plan I have isn't too great, but I haven't put much thought over it besides the moral obligation and long term advantages it'd provide the reunified country with and the technological level in military strength and artillery South Korea has in sheer comparison.### Assistant: First, we had concentration camps under General Park. those were part of the conditions that produced the Asian Miracle.
And yes, obviously compelling them to work hard for their own benefit would be better than forcing them to work hard for the benefit of the elite. But there's still a lot of moral grey area in there. It still looks bad when you have two areas run by one government, one area in which people work "only" 50-60 hours a week and are well fed and sheltered with cars and movie theatres and amusement parks, and the other are in which people work 90 hours a week and live in shanty towns and eat gruel. And then we have the international community yelling at as about segregation, and the closed border, and inhuman work conditions, and how can we be so cruel, yadda yadda yadda, because human rights activists, well intenioned as they may be, won't compare the South Korean occupation of North Korea to the former government of North Korea, they will only compare the occupation to how things are back in the capital. People won't be happy, it won't look good for us, there will be divisiveness and protests even in our own political discourse back home....in short it will be a mess, a giant sticky mess that will last 20 years in the best possible case scenario.
And yes, that will be better for the North Koreans. I don't deny that. But it will be worse for the South Koreans. A lot worse. Our economy will still suffer, though with a bit of competent governing it won't crash. But we will still have massive casualties and infrastructure damage from the war. Lives lost or ruined, for what purpose? To help North Korea? Why do they deserve it? Why should we sacrifice so much for them? It won't make South Korea any stronger economically over any kind of term. our best hope is that after 50, 60, 70 years, the united Korea can be as economically strong as South Korea is now. So you are asking us to sacrifice the next three generations of productivity and economic stability, along with possibly tens of thousands of lives, to help another country out of the goodness of our hearts, a country that has never, and would never, do a single thing for us.
Whatever city you have must have homeless people right? Why not go find one of those homeless people and let them move into your house? And give them 50% of all future money you make until they can get a job and support themselves. Oh, and your brother might die in the process, but hey, you would be making a difference in their life! Don't you think you would have a moral obligation? Why or why not?### Human: > First, we had concentration camps under General Park.
Have you got a reliable source for this? In years of academic reading on Park, who was admittedly no saint, I've never come across this.### Assistant: Are you able to read sources in Korean?### Human: Sure, but my preference is for academic work, not unedited websites### Assistant: My Korean isnt great, so Ill see if my wife can help me when she gets home. Off the top of my head the one that I was thinking of was the [삼청육대]( https://ko.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/삼청교육대), but a quick glance seems to put that as being primarily active under Parks sucessor. So maybe im mistaken and remembering the wrong dictator as far as labor camps go. Thats always possible. I know more about this stuff than 99% of redditers, but if you speak korean well and you've made it a point to research this stuff, you could probably school me pretty well.### Human: All good. Your comment just took me by surprise. Not sure if you've read it but [The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea](http://www.amazon.com/The-Park-Chung-Hee-Transformation/dp/0674072316) edited by Byung-Kook Kim and Ezra F. Vogel is an outstanding collection of English language academic work on the period.### Assistant: Cool! Ill check that out for sure ^-^ |
### Human: CMV: Reddit should hide the scores of posts until the user has voted for themselves.### Assistant: Moderators already have the ability to implement a system that largely eliminates the *bandwagon effect*. They can: 1) Put a certain post in "contest mode," which randomizes the order in which top-level comments are distributed and hides the scores until the post is removed from "contest mode." 2) The other option is to hide vote scores for a long period of time. In /r/changemyview the scores are hidden for ~~2-3~~ 24 hours, in other subs it's much longer. /r/NeutralPolitics hides scores for 24 hours!
No additional steps need to be taken here, in my opinion. It's up to the moderators to decide what approach is best for a subreddit.
edit: correction credited to /u/cacheflow### Human: Why not widespread rather than just at the disposal of the moderators?### Assistant: > Why not widespread rather than just at the disposal of the moderators?
Because different subreddits serve different purposes. Hiding scores on something like /r/crappydesign is pointless. That sub doesn't exist to spread knowledge or discussion, it's there for users to post shitty designs they find in real life and joke about it.
Hiding scores is more useful if it's implemented in subreddits that exist for discussion, in my opinion. Ultimately, it's the moderators who get to decide what kind of "atmosphere" they want in a subreddit. They have many methods of achieving this: rules, mod teams, voting schemes, etc.### Human: Valid point, but is it really that much of an issue to make the change if it's "pointless"?### Assistant: > is it really that much of an issue to make the change if it's "pointless"
It's not for me to say, really. Disabling scores wouldn't do much for most subreddits.
I'd also like to clarify something: Even when scores are "hidden" for 24 hours, voting doesn't make the score visible to the person who is voting. They remain hidden for a specific period of time and only become visible after the that period ends.### Human: That difference is why I think the current measure is insufficient### Assistant: I don't understand. /u/cacheflow has explained to you how just hiding the comment scores will not eliminate the bandwagon effect since the comments are still ranked according to points. The only real way to eliminate the bandwagon effect completely is to hide scores **and** use "contest mode."
I'm also aware that moderators can tweak the CSS of each subreddit to disable voting by anyone who isn't a subscriber. I don't think any system is perfect, which is why it's up to the mods of a subreddit to decide what method best serves the community.### Human: It does not entirely eliminate if but I would say it definitely reduces it### Assistant: I have no problem with your plan to eliminate the bandwagon effect. What I have a problem with is the prescriptive *should* you've used. It is not for Reddit to decide what is best for a particular subreddit, that decision is best left to the moderators. As long as the subreddit doesn't break any of Reddit's site-wide rules then the moderators should keep the autonomy they enjoy in running their subs. If you re-read my comments, you'll see that I've simply insisted that these decisions are best left to the mods.### Human: I agree.
**But** I think that making the default setting on Reddit hidden scores rather than shown scores will circuitously better reduce bandwagoning in subreddits which house legitimate discussions.
Here's why:
**(btw, that was my tl;dr. If you want to actually know why, then buckle up because here comes a lot of words and a lot of confusing sentence structuring.)**
Let's work off of the basis that subreddits in which *legitimate discussion is promoted*, like r/neutralpolitics, should have comments' scores *hidden* from users until they vote. And that subreddits in which legitimate discussions *are not promoted or necessary*, like r/crappydesigns, should have comments' scores *shown* regardless of the users' votes.
Under that assumption, having the default setting on Reddit be *shown scores* means that moderators of subreddits in which *legitimate discussion is promoted* are tasked with *enabling hidden scores* in order to better facilitate their subreddits' need for legitimate discussions. Moderators of subreddits in which legitimate discussions *are not promoted or necessary* need not do anything regarding vote options to further facilitate their subreddit's needs.
On the flip side, having the default setting on Reddit be *hidden scores* means that moderators of subreddits in which legitimate discussions *are not promoted or necessary* are tasked with *enabling shown scores* in order to better facilitate their subreddits' needs, which is to say that *shown scores* would be better enabled for such subreddits because *hidden scores* would be unnecessary. Moderators of subreddits in which *legitimate discussion is promoted* need not do anything regarding vote options to further facilitate their subreddit's needs.
Comparing *both* scenarios (one in which *shown scores* are the default on Reddit, and one in which *hidden scores* are the default on Reddit) for two hypothetical subreddits (Sub 1 and Sub 2) which *have not enabled* the setting that is more applicable to their needs, it is *less likely* that users of Sub 1 in which *legitimate discussion is promoted* would pressure its moderators to *enable hidden scores* which would better facilitate that subreddit's needs, while it is *more likely* that users of Sub 2 in which legitimate discussions *are not promoted or necessary* would pressure its moderators to *enable shown scores* which would better facilitate that subreddit's needs.
This is because *hidden scores* in a *casual* subreddit which does not demand it are more noticeable and affect users more overtly than *shown scores* in a *formal* subreddit which would be better without it.
This is to say that moderators of casual subreddits are more likely to choose the right vote option for their subreddits given these two scenarios.
This being the case, it is better for Reddit as whole to adopt *hidden scores as a default.*### Assistant: You definitely put a lot of thought into that comment. :)
So I think it comes down to convenience and some number crunching. I believe that the very large majority of subs on reddit are *casual*. The number of subs that exist for substantive discussion are easily the minority, most (but not all) of them are a part of the DepthHub network.
So since keeping scores on by default suits the vast majority of subs, whether new or old, I think it's the superior option. There's also the fact that hiding scores is easily achieved, it would take a mod less than a minute to change the settings. There's a lot going for having scores shown by default as long as it's easy to switch if the need is felt. The subs that offer substantive discussion do experiment with what they need and what works best. For an example of what could be a great sub check out r/Notmyshoes. It's a work in progress.### Human: Right, good point, so then I'd just say the solution to the problem would be to pressure / advocate enabling hidden scores to the moderators of subs which discuss serious topics.
(btw I actually didn't put much thought into it... it just took SO FUCKIN LONG to explain my train of thought in an understandable way) xD### Assistant: > I'd just say the solution to the problem would be to pressure / advocate enabling hidden scores to the moderators of subs which discuss serious topics.
Sure. This sort of stuff happens all the time. You'd need to contact the mods and maybe get in touch with some of the top users of a sub and get them to support you. Then just ask the mods to make a feedback post which would let the sub's users share their view and abracadabra maybe you'll see a change.### Human: Yup; I agree with the OP's feeling that something should be done about bandwagoning, and, like you said, contacting moderators of specific subs about enabling hidden scores would be a good way to do that. Alakazam. |
### Human: CMV: US courts should use professional jurors and the selection process should be blind### Assistant: Criminal defendants always have the option of waiving their right to a jury and choosing to have their cases heard by judges instead. Civil parties may do the same, although all parties must agree. Seems to me that takes care of your objections, and if they choose a jury instead, perhaps there's a reason for it.### Human: The fact that there's an option to choose between a jury and a judge doesn't mean that having a majorly-flawed jury system is correct. A bench trial may be *more fair* than our current jury system, but I believe that spreading the decision over 12 people rather than 1 is a smarter concept in theory, only that how we do it now is deeply problematic.### Assistant: Why do you think criminal defendants and civil parties, advised by expert lawyers, choose juries over judges?
I think civil defendants, often large corporations, would much prefer professional jurors over people off the street. And they might prefer them to judges, as well, although it depends on the judge. But I don't think civil plaintiffs would have that same preference.
As for criminal defendants, I'm not sure why they prefer juries, but many of them obviously do.### Human: I think that defendants are completely unaware of jury conviction rates or typical jury behavior. Especially if they haven't committed the crime, they believe that at least a few people on a jury of 12 strangers will see that they are obviously innocent and convince the others, where a judge is one person that you have to convince.
Interesting point about civil cases. The standard in civil cases is about the "preponderance of evidence" - whether you are "more likely than not" to have done something. In reality, I doubt lay people really treat the criminal standard any differently, which is why criminal trials are the main ones in question in the main post, because the standards are supposed to be different. But people who understand the distinction would give more credibility to both systems.### Assistant: Criminal defendants may be unaware, but their attorneys shouldn't be.### Human: Completely agree, but it's immaterial because their attorneys are just advisors - they don't get to unilaterally make the decision about whether to go to trial or whether to have a bench or jury trial. It takes a certain type of defendant to reject all of the plea deals on the way to trial in the first place, even ~~knowing~~ if their attorneys tell them about high trail conviction rates.
edit: clarification### Assistant: Criminal defense attorneys do often suggest going to trial, and often suggest demanding a jury trial.
If, for example, your client is accused of breaking some hyper-technical and hard to explain regulatory law, you probably want to have a jury trial, since the government may have a hard time convincing the jury your client did anything wrong. |
### Human: CMV: Whether abortion may or may not be morally wrong, it should still be legal.### Assistant: > The best analogy I’ve heard is as follows
That was the worst analogy possible. Following exactly that logic, we should allow women to have abortions but also arrest them for manslaughter immediately afterwards. Your analogy dictates that a person cannot be compelled to take an action. It doesn't mean that the person is not *liable* for their actions.
> Abortion should be legal, based primarily on my foundational belief on bodily autonomy.
This is a logical inconsistency. Bodily autonomy states that each person has the right to their own body but does not have the right to impact another person. If we were to assume that a fetus is a person, then an abortion would be comparable to murder.
For the record, I don't assume that a fetus is a person. However the foundations for *your* arguments on the matter are logically inconsistent.### Human: >It doesn't mean that the person is not liable for their actions.
But in the case of the car accident, the person is not liable for refusing to give blood, they are liable for getting into the car accident. In an abortion, you are prosecuting someone for refusing to give blood.
>Bodily autonomy states that each person has the right to their own body but does not have the right to impact another person. If we were to assume that a fetus is a person, then an abortion would be comparable to murder.
I don't think that follows at all. an abortion is the refusal to continue to impact another body, not the decision to do so.
It's not murder to refuse to donate an organ to your child, even if he dies. It's not murder to refuse to donate bone marrow, even if the child dies. And it's even not murder to refuse to donate blood to your child, even if the child dies.
I really don't see how refusing to give blood, organs, and a space in your body could be considered murder.
>For the record, I don't assume that a fetus is a person. However the foundations for your arguments on the matter are logically inconsistent.
You are tackling my position exactly how I hoped you would.### Assistant: There is a vast difference between letting someone die from inaction and taking action specifically to kill someone. An abortion is always taking deliberate action to kill someone.
I've heard the argument along the lines of "what if you woke up and someone else had been hooked into your body so your blood is flowing through them and keeping them alive. They need to remain this way for 9 months, and if you sever the attachment, they will die." Unless you are likely to die if you don't separate, it is clearly not morally acceptable to take action to kill another for your convenience. Yes, it may suck. Yes, whoever hooked you together should be punished (this really only applies to pregnancy in the case or rape), but it is never justified to take action to kill another just so your quality of life improves. The right to life always trumps any vague sense of a right to body autonomy (which we obviously don't have. If we did, I could walk naked where I want, masturbate where I want, etc).### Human: "Kill" "someone"
A first trimester abortion is neither killing nor is the fetus "someone." This is legally recognized.### Assistant: There is no logic in your statement whatsoever.
1. Legally recognized doesn't make it not killing (see point 2), or even not murder. The full weight of the Nazi government was behind the killing of the Jews, but no one thinks that legitimizes it and makes it less murder.
2. I don't understand your objection to the word "kill." Is is absolutely the correct word for this, whether you are pro life or pro choice. You might not consider it a person, but if you terminate the life of any organism, "kill" is the right word, as in "I killed an ant."
3. I do understand that there is a vigorous debate about whether a fetus is a person. Simply stating that you think it's not isn't going to change anyone's mind. Just like I don't expect you to be convinced by my stating that a fetus is a person. Keep in mind that the OP has stipulated that a fetus is a person for the purpose of this discussion, so that debate is another topic.### Human: Well, Mr. Number List, I would argue that in a court of law, legally defining something as killing might be important. And since I'm talking about the law and and not what I think or think of as moral, as you presume, there's really no argument to be had. If you want to refer to an abortion as "killing" feel free but no court defines it that way. Probably because the language is biased or comedically hyperbolic. Now if OP chooses to define fetus as a person, regardless of trimester, that's their deal but that's certainly a presumption that favors a particular conclusion making this CMV a lot less interesting. But it's beside the point. I wasn't here to argue morality. I just presented a rough outline of how the law sees it.### Assistant: There is no debate about what the law allows. I'm not sure why you brought it up, since that is irrelevant to this CMV and this part of the thread.
This CMV is predicated on the idea that even if the fetus is a person and it's immoral to kill it, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. This is specifically a morality discussion.
I agree that the law avoids the term "kill," although that is where the vias lies, as the most natural word in English is avoided because of possible negative connotations. The word itself does not carry any bias.### Human: Yeah, it's dumb. You can't imbue rights to a fetus and argue it doesn't have a right to live. This entire CMV is really, make me understand what a tautology is.### Assistant: I disagree. I think it's a fairly sensible question. After all, we sometimes have to make choices about when certain rights trump others, and she is saying bodily autonomy trumps right to life. I strongly disagree with the OP, but it's not really a tautology. |
### Human: CMV: for most people science requires faith### Assistant: The difference is faith in science is "faith in the unknown" while faith in God is "faith in the unknowable".
Some one could personally investigate any scientific conclusion, at least in principle. But you can't, even in principle, see if God is real.
A better word for "faith in the unknown" is "trust". Scientists could be wrong and I could check the science myself, but instead I choose to trust them. However, even if I trust everything my priest says, I know that he relies on faith for his knowledge of God, and that he can't actually know that God is real.
Faith and trust can be used interchangeably, but trust is the better word in the case of unknown things, and faith is the better word for unknowable things.### Human: I don't know if there's that much of a difference between faith in he unknown and faith in the unknowable. Both situations entail a person believing something to be true without proof. Failure to understand why the evidence is true is the same as not having evidence at all. If you can't explain *why* something is true you assume it to be true on another persons word, without proof, and thus on faith.### Assistant: >Failure to understand why the evidence is true is the same as not having evidence at all.
There is actually a world of difference here.
"You can NOT know that, you need to trust me"
is a lot different from
"If you want, I can explain it to you."
Then, for practical purposes, most people will say "It's ok, I trust you.". Many others will say "I don't believe you, I'll test this on my own."
The point is that in the whole history, there is no record of someone finding a different theory of evolution, or a different theory of gravity, because every single person who applies logic and attempts to study it will find the same result. There are though a ton of different religions, religious forms and variants, because everyone can come up with their own idea and back it up with "faith".### Human: I agree with your post, but I find your examples kinda weak. Over the decades there have been a number of different variations on the theory of evolution, and there is still a lot we don't understand about gravity and are continually refining these theories.
It might be better to point to scientific laws such as newton's laws, as these have shown themselves to be more clearly set in stone### Assistant: > newton's laws
Depending on exactly what you mean, that may also be a bad example - Newtonian mechanics are a good approximation of reality for objects within a limited range of sizes and speeds (with that range being the one we spend most of our time dealing with), but in terms of being *actually correct* he's been superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics... and even then we *know* they're not going to be the final version of physics because they don't agree with each other.
The core concept of evolution (common descent with heritable modifications and natural selection) is arguably more static than the various paradigm shifts from classical physics to the modern model. Plenty of changes in all the details of course, but the basic idea of inheritance/selection has stayed the same. |
### Human: CMV: When working on a jigsaw puzzle, looking at the picture on the box is not cheating.### Assistant: I think it depends what you want out of it.
If you want the satisfaction of completing the puzzle - it doesn't matter.
If you want the mind puzzle of also figuring out what the image is, it is obviously cheating.### Human: > If you want the mind puzzle of also figuring out what the image is, it is obviously cheating.
But I bought the puzzle with a giant picture on the front of the box. I already know what the image is before I even open it. Its not like I can realistically work from scratch to figure out what the image is.### Assistant: I've seen blank puzzles, but that's beyond the point.
To compare it to the "hard mode" you already know what the outcome is. You'll fight some boss, just there will be more other crappy guys in the way. You know what it looks like, but by not constantly referencing it, you have the little additional challenges of figuring out where each section of trees belong.### Human: Right, that's kinda my point. There are two ways to do the puzzle in my mind. Normal mode, where you have access to the box, and hard mode, where you destroy or somehow become ignorant of what it is (like have a friend open it and destroy the box before you get there). But hard mode isn't really how puzzles are expected to be done.
Others argue that my distinctions of normal and hard, should be relabeled cheating and normal. That's what I'm curious about.### Assistant: But puzzles are supposed to be challenging.
If you don't want to be challenged, you are doing it for the puzzle. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - I wouldn't describe it as cheating - just I wouldn't say I'm solving a puzzle.### Human: > But puzzles are supposed to be challenging.
I still think its challenging to figure out a jigsaw puzzle in this manner. Just not as challenging as the hard way.### Assistant: Is it really challenging? Or is it just time consuming?### Human: I'd say its challenging, yes. A good puzzle often has ambiguous pieces that aren't clear from looking at them individually where they might go.### Assistant: But an ambiguous piece is one part of the puzzle, what about an entire ambiguous tree, or boat or whatever?
They are supposed to be challenging. If you solve subsets of the puzzle, then get "hints" of where each subset belongs, did you really figure out the whole puzzle? |
### Human: CMV:Mothers should not be given preference during custody regarding the physical placement of newborns and infants.### Assistant: >Breastfeeding does complicate matters, I agree, the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding until he age of two.
WHO recommends breastfeeding *at least* until the age of two:
>>The World Health Organization recommends that infants start breastfeeding within one hour of life, are exclusively breastfed for six months, with timely introduction of adequate, safe and properly fed complementary foods while continuing breastfeeding for up to two years of age or beyond.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/infantfeeding/en/
>My counterargument to this is, firstly, she would not be doing for the benefit of the father, it would be to the benefit her child.
It isn't a matter of benefit, it's a matter of burden. Placing the child away from the mother increases the burden on the mother in providing optimum care. The same cannot be said with regard to the father if the child is places with the mother.
>both the father and child are missing out on bonding during what I consider the best years to be a father.
First, I completely agree that the father will miss out. But in a 50/50 arrangement, the father will *still* miss out, and so will the mother (to equal degrees). The fact that the parents are separated necessitates some missing out, the only question is how to apportion it.
If everything else were equal, then yes, I'd agree that 50/50 would be equitable. But everything else is *not* equal; nursing is simply something that a father cannot do, and it is unreasonable for the legal system to place an additional burden on the mother's (and *only* the mother's) ability to provide optimal care.
That said, if it can be shown that the mother does not nurse (for whatever reason), none of that applies, and it should be 50/50.### Human: In instances where newborns are without their mothers (given up for adoption, mother died during childbirth, etc.), is the potential for optimal care (from a physiological standpoint which is the realm I think breastfeeding resides) gone with their mothers?
If not, it can't be an argument against equal custody.### Assistant: Yes, the potential for optimal care provided by those individuals is gone.
I don't mean optimal as in a platonic ideal of child care in a perfect situation. I mean the optimal care that a particular care-giver is capable of and willing to provide. We're talking about a situation where the child has a mother who wants to provide care, not a situation where she is unwilling or does not exist.### Human: You mentioned that only the mother is in a position to provide optimal care / nursing, in contrast to the father.
That position only stands if there is some kind of deficiency in care/nursing in cases where mothers are not present, specifically in regards to what is presented as the main argument for greater custody to go to the mother: breastfeeding.
Obviously, being a single parent might introduce other issues, but those are outside the scope of this CMV as both parents are willing and present.
If no such deficiency exists, then there is no basis for a mother to have any more custody than the father, i.e. 50/50 split, as there clearly would be adequate, alternate means of providing nursing / optimal care to a newborn when the mother is absent during the father's time with the baby, supposing of course the father is willing and able to arrange for them during his time with the newborn.### Assistant: >You mentioned that only the mother is in a position to provide optimal care in contrast to the father.
That's not what I meant. Optimal care includes breastfeeding, which necessitates care by the mother. (Even in the case of pumping, the mother must have previously pumped.)
>That position only stands if there is some kind of deficiency in care in cases where mothers are not present
I further clarified that by "optimal" I am referring to the optimal care within the bounds of the care the parent(s) are willing and able to provide. If the mother is dead, for example, she has no ability to breastfeed and thus it is not part of the optimal care she can provide for the child. Similarly if the mother is unwilling or unable to breastfeed, then it is no longer part of the child's optimal care.
But if the mother is willing and able to breasfeed, then it is part of the child's optimal care.
>If no such deficiency exists
If the mother and father are equally willing and able to breastfeed (i.e., if the mother is *not* willing or able), then I agree (and I said as much explicitly in the last line of my first comment). If the mother is willing and able, then the father's ability and willingness to provide care does have a deficiency relative to the mother's. |
### Human: As an expansion of the 'sex censorship for children' idea; I strongly believe that *nothing* should be censored to children and that they can handle exactly as much as we presuppose they can. CMV.### Assistant: > I am of the mind that the consciousness of a child is fully equipped to handle whatever content is thrown at it, if the content is properly framed and explained.
What if the proper framing and explanation process is to take years?
I'll use horror films as an example because they are relevant. When I was 7 or so, I watched the movie *Invaders from Mars* (the 1986 remake) with my dad and there were some scenes that were disturbing. In one scene, a person is immobilized on an alien space ship and is injected with a needle-like implant in the back of their neck. Characters in the film that had been "taken over" would have this tell-tale scar where the implant was inserted. These images gave me nightmares for a month.
Part of the problem was that subconsciously, my brain was confused about what was real and what was not. While I knew it was just a movie, part of my brain thought this was something I should be worried about, and I had trouble sleeping for a while. Had I instead watched the movie *Hellraiser* or something similar instead, one can only imagine the night terrors I would have experienced.
Even as adults, there are things with which we are often unable to cope - some extreme experiences cause problems that manifest themselves as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Children love to imitate things - it's how we learn to do what we do. We're copiers. If we copy behaviour at an age where we don't understand the context of the behaviour, then you get kids doing things that you would only want to see on TV or the movies. "Framing and explanation" is tricky because not all kids develop at the same rate and its hard to know when kids are able to understand certain concepts safely.
So no, a child is *not* fully equipped to handle any content or experience. Being equipped to deal often takes time to develop and isn't something we're born with.
*edit: spelling*### Human: Ehh, that makes sense, but I don't think the correct solution is to shelter and protect children. And I think that a lot of what you experienced is highly individual, some people will have that experience, others won't care.### Assistant: How do you tell which is which when they are a child and hence still not fully developed? How do you know how that child will respond? If you can't know, then shouldn't you err on the side of caution?### Human: Let's say I have a group of ten children. My goal is to prepare them for life, maximize the number prepared, and minimize the time taken.
I can choose to reduce losses to zero by waiting ten years. However, I could instead take the chance that #5 will be unable to handle a quicker pace. Probably nothing will happen. So now I have a 9-year plan. Further improvements come at further costs. Reducing that to 5 years will cause a burnout rate of 1/5. I've halved the time-but I'm now losing two kids. Thinking logically, this is an improvement. Yes, I lose two kids, but I doubled the rate of production.
Erring on the side of caution is what we're doing now, with the result that production of kids prepared to be adults has been extended and slowed. We've sacrificed the group to save a few(who in my opinion are deadweight).
You're probably thinking this is harsh. Yes, it is. It also maximizes production of adults while minimizing time. You can have an efficient system that has a relatively small number of losses, or you can have an inefficient system that reduces the losses to zero. What we have is the second system. People in general are *horrible* at looking at what benefits the group as a whole. They see an individual situation (the loss of one kid), and think "oh no! we need to stop that! better slow down the production rate!".
What exactly is the best system I don't know, probably something in the middle. But no, I do not agree that erring on the side of caution is absolutely best.### Assistant: Are we not already in the middle? People are, by and large, allowed to raise their children as they see fit. Is there any law prohibiting you from showing your children an R-rated, or for that matter NC-17 film or allowing them to play an M-rated video game in your own home? Pornography is absurdly easy to access, and if you would like to restrict your child's access to it, then you are absolutely allowed to monitor your child's internet consumption.
Furthermore, why are you defining sensitivity to violence and/or sexual content as a character flaw, or deadweight, as you put it? On what basis have you established that? "That's just how the real world is" is not a valid basis for disrespecting a child's inability to stomach violence. I would argue that that is actually a virtue that should be encouraged and cultivated. |
### Human: CMV: There is no such thing as the "friendzone"### Assistant: I don't really get your cmv:
'Friendzone' unless you have different definition, is simply getting told by someone you love that (s)he see you more like a friend.
It obviously happens.### Human: OP seems to be working with a definition of friendzone that's different from the one that seems to be the most accepted.### Assistant: The movie trope where she won't date you because she doesn't want to ruin a friendship. In other circumstances she would.
I think op believes that doesn't exist.### Human: Eh that's just something that pretty girls say to guys that have the perfect personality but aren't good looking enough to sleep with. It's my life.### Assistant: Except those guys don't have the "perfect personality" are too subservient and expect sex for kindness. (Generally) Girls like someone who is a bit of a challenge, someone with exciting stuff going on and ambition. |
### Human: I believe the United States is, or is close to becoming, a fascist state. CMV.### Assistant: There are a lot of [definitions for fascism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism) but I wouldn't consider the one you posted one of them. Notice how vague and ambiguous all those points on the list are? How much of it is simply conjecture/opinion? How often the word "secret" is used? Not to mention that major parts of what is usually considered fascist ideology are missing: Opposition to democracy, individuality, equality just to name some.### Human: I would be interested in specific examples of how points on the list are not true rather than doubts. Again,
America in recent years has become increasing unequal in pay and is basically now at the bottom in terms of equality:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/12/business/la-fi-census-poverty-rate-20120913
The democratic system is ineffective as it doesn't allow voters any recourse - Except through a government operated, 'we the people' site. The choice comes only once every 4 years and both parties are essentially the same.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: I definitely think this a cop out. All of the above points can clearly be seen in the direction and state of the US government today.
While it might not be a historically perfect definition of fascism, I certainly still think it is close and moving towards### Assistant: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV:Racial pride is a part of the problem with racism.### Assistant: I grew up hearing all around that people like me should be ashamed of who we are. Predictably this was a fairly big hit to my sense of self-worth, and I NEEDED a sense of pride about being a member of a minority group. Now, I'm white and gay, not black, or Hispanic, or asian, but the point still stands. Minority pride develops in response to the constant message that minorities should be ashamed of who they are. It is a response to discrimination, not a cause.### Human: That logic doesn't follow. It can be both a response and a cause. I think violence and other negative things can be like this. Hatfields and McCoys, maybe one side started it at some point, but the bulk of a feud is that one side responds to the most recent actions of the other. I do think that minority pride causes a lot of problems, I don't think OP should totally change their view. I think it's a natural and psychologically healthy reaction, and I'm not advocating the reverse (minority shame) but over time it's a type of self-handicapping and can enforce a penalty on people within the minority group who want to act differently than the way the majority in that group operates.### Assistant: Well sure, the fact that it's an effect doesn't mean it's not also a cause - I'd agree. I was maybe being a bit hyperbolic to make my point that it's not really part of the problem with racism. Even if minority pride does result in some extra prejudice, it's not something we can focus on to help combat racism - it naturally arises from a group who is discriminated with.
Also, I'm not really sure how much minority pride contributes to prejudice and discrimination. How does me being proud of my sexuality contribute to discrimination against me?### Human: Depends on how (if) you show it, and what stereotypes are drawn from it.
Take the gay pride parade, for instance. Do you think that was an accurate portrayal of the LGBTQ community as a whole? And people feed off of whatever divide is created (or rather, whatever is made to be different) and find a way to spin in poorly.
Society has a way with being oppressive. When people are granted equality, there has always followed a period of the oppressors acting out against it. See reconstruction in the US south after the Civil War. But by allowing that "difference" to become definitive of your culture and thusly you, you grant a truth to an idea of how your race/creed/sexual preference/whateverImayhaveforgotten makes you who you are. It takes away your ability to be an equal individual. And isn't that the original goal?### Assistant: >Take the gay pride parade, for instance. Do you think that was an accurate portrayal of the LGBTQ community as a whole?
No. Do I think it was intended to be one? No.
>And people feed off of whatever divide is created (or rather, whatever is made to be different) and find a way to spin in poorly.
And the blame lies solely at the feet of the discriminators. "In order to be treated as equals, you have to act exactly like us" is no real equality at all.
>When people are granted equality, there has always followed a period of the oppressors acting out against it.
**legal** equality. Societal still very much exists.
>But by allowing that "difference" to become definitive of your culture and thusly you, you grant a truth to an idea of how your race/creed/sexual preference/whateverImayhaveforgotten makes you who you are.
Wait, who ever said anything about letting a stereotype define you? I'm my own person, not a stereotype, and having gay pride isn't changing that.
>It takes away your ability to be an equal individual.
But, EVEN IF you are right, and my pride somehow makes me defined by stereotypes, I am still equal. Equal doesn't mean "same in every way", it means "despite whatever differences we might have, I am just as much a person as you and deserve to be treated that way".### Human: But that's the perception you create. If you have an event for "____ pride," you would expect to see behaviors characteristic of "___."
If you purposefully act different in this kind of event, then you are willfully creating a misconception. You cannot blame people for misinterpreting your portrayal of your culture. If you have pride, how you show it should be reflective of what you have pride in. A rainbow and tight leather pride parade wouldn't consist of exclusively homosexuals walking.### Assistant: You are literally asking gay people at pride parades to "act straight."
Gay people at pride parades aren't "asking to be negatively stereotyped." The people who should be shamed are the ones making negative judgment, not the ones who are at the parade.### Human: No I'm not. You agreed yourself that people in gay pride parades aren't representative of the majority of the LGBTQ community. Do you not think there is anything in between the actions of those people and the actions of a straight person? That's a false dichotomy.### Assistant: >You agreed yourself that people in gay pride parades aren't representative of the majority of the LGBTQ community.
I didn't make that claim anywhere. And there's no real way to prove that one way or another anyhow. |
### Human: CMV: In the internet age, retailers and content producers should work together to make content readily accessible rather than fight to punish those who "pirate" it.### Assistant: You're trading analog dollars for digital pennies though.
Like these companies built huge businesses up on scarcity. And music excluded piracy is still too much of a hassle for the average person. I teach elementary school and like my colleagues would find the process of ripping off tv shows and movies to be far more of a hassle than it's worth, especially in light of the time economy and average broadband speeds where you might have to wait a good bit before you can watch your show.
It's a business decision to extract the most money out of a piece of media by subjecting it to windowing. That is first get the money out of the people who will pay 11 dollars to watch it one time. Then get the 20 dollars out of the people who will buy the blu-ray. Then get money from HBO or similar, then eventually it ends up for rent on iTunes& Amazon.
Yes eventually we might end up at a place where a model like the one you suggest makes sense, but today is not that day. Piracy might eventually be easier and faster, the money graphs may switch where people are making more off of their direct businesses but until that day happens people are still going to want to get as many bites at the apple as they can before they go to the LCD business model.### Human: I am so glad I have a good piracy system. My setup is easy and seamless and at worst is as easy as Netflix. I still subscribe to Netflix, Amazon and Spotify. But if it isn't available on one of those, I have no difficulty procuring it otherwise.### Assistant: What is your setup? Something in Kodi?### Human: Just showrss and plex. I download shows the day they air and share them with a plex server. I can even watch from work with plex. I download movies manually because I don't want all of them, but it works perfectly.### Assistant: Do you use a VPN? I don't mean to pry, but I am kinda new to this 'advanced' piracy, I just visit KAT and torrent, hoping for the best that no DCMAs come my way.### Human: I use privateinternetaccess it is only like $40 a year. Feel free to pry, I have spent time on this and like to talk about it.### Assistant: Sounds cool, I will look into it. Have you heard of Genesis addon for Kodi? It streams about any show/movie, and since it is streaming no DCMAs are in play. Pretty nice. And works on android as well.### Human: Are you using a media center pc? I have used xbmc but I have too many tvs to set it up on each one. I use a mix of rokus and chromecasts to actually play the media.
Also I find that plex does a better job of automatic media labeling, though it isn't at all customizable.### Assistant: Yes, I do everything on a PC or android phone. Nice talking to you. I'll look into the chromecasts for plex. |
### Human: CMV: Islam isn't bad; people are bad.### Assistant: If I told you that I believe gays should be thrown off of buildings, pedophelia was a ok, women should have to obey their husbands in all things never go out in public alone and must cover themselves, that you must believe as I do or die, that keeping women as sex slaves was good, and thatvmutilating criminals is the way to go you would rightly ostracize me and likely not allow me into your society/country if you could help it.
Yet somehow when all these beliefs are wrapped into one package and called a religion people give it a pass.
These are all practices/beliefs/laws passed down by Mohammad through the Koran, Hadith, and Sirat.
Muslims are told to emulate Mohammad in every single way. Doing so would make that individual a rapist, a sex slaver, a warlord guilty of genocide, and a pedophile.
Contrast that with the example set by the Buddha, Jesus, or Moses.
Pretending that all religions are created equal is patently absurd. While any religion or belief system can be perverted to stir up violence, no perversion, reinterpretation, or extrapolation is necessary. The violence, hate, and degeneracy present in Mohammad's example is written down clear as day and speaks for itself.### Human: I agree that many tenets of Islam are objectionable by today's moral standards, but you didn't address the fact that people *choose* to follow these ideas. Mateen *chose* to kill 50 people today, something I don't think should be blamed on his religion.### Assistant: So is Nazism bad or no, just because people choose to follow it? Based on your argument no ideology or way of thibking could be bad.
You're also not really considering that people are often born into religion/religious cultures, which brings up questions of indoctrination, and, in my mind what's most important, the question of whether they would do the things they do had they not been adherents to the religion.### Human: I would say that yes, an ideology can't be bad, only the people who choose to follow it.
In the case of indoctrination, I would argue that fault lies with the "indoctrinators", not the overall belief structure.### Assistant: So for what exactly are you faulting the indoctrinators? If you believe there is nothing wrong with the belief system with which they are indoctrinating people, then what have they done wrong?### Human: By indoctrinating people, I mean brainwashing people into committing acts of violence. Belief structure or not, I believe this is morally wrong.### Assistant: So you see absolutely nothing wrong with violent ideology as long as it's not forced on people?### Human: Yes, and as long as people don't act upon it in violent ways.### Assistant: So there are no good or bad ideas or forces in the world, just the actions of people?### Human: If OP says yes to this, then his entire post becomes void.### Assistant: I think it's ludicrous OP believes that an ideology can't be violent in and of itself. If someone writes a code of rules and it says to kill and eat every 7th child born in your town, does that not make the ruleset violent?### Human: Depends on your perception of the word violent, I would imagine. OP believes that an instigator of violence isn't violent by himself, if he doesn't participate in the violence. |
### Human: CMV: Talent isn't needed to excel at something### Assistant: that assumes talented people don't practice, they do.
lets say excellent is the top 5% of whatever.
now someone with talent only needs 3 hours instead of 8 to do the same thing a non talented person does, both practice for 10 years, who will be in the excellent category and who will be in the merely good?### Human: > Talent is the ability to learn something to a certain degree faster than an average person. Of course the degree varies from person to person.
Of course I don't assume talented people don't need to practice. As you said, in my opinion they just have an advantage since they learn faster.
It seems I have misunderstood how exactly “excel” should be used. I'm not a native speaker, my bad. I meant that they'll become good at it, not necessarily on a competitive level, but good enough to be considered more than just mediocre. However I'll edit my post, thanks for making me aware of it.### Assistant: I'm gonna use an example with video games because its the thing i can relate to best here. I play WoW (World of Warcraft). There is a VERY large gap between skilled players and poor players. given completely equal circumstances, a skilled player can be magnitudes more effective than a bad player.
Now, with what you're saying is that everybody can potentially reach the same level of play if they simply practice, train, and learn hard enough. From my experience this is simply *not* the case. I have a friend who watches youtube, streamers, reads all the guides, plays hours and hours a day. I hate to say it, but he's still only mediocre at best. He cares. He's genuinely trying. He's a smart dude, he knows what to do and how to do it, he just cant't.
I realize that that's just one person, but i've heard stories and seen this same thing again and again. I know you said "good, but not competitive". Some of these people are still god awful after years in it.### Human: He maybe has a crap mouse/connection.### Assistant: Actually no. he's a computer buff and works IT at local warehouse. He goes hard when upgrading his computer.### Human: Damn... Well still, high-level WoW is much more complex than what OP was talking about. Anyone can learn to draw realistic drawings, but there are only a few artist that actually convey a feeling.### Assistant: >Anyone can learn to draw realistic drawings
I would argue that this is most definitely not the case### Human: Yeah art is one of the last things I'd think of with the whole 'it you try hard enough, you'll do it' philosophy.### Assistant: The technical side of art - the actual drawing, painting, sculpting, etc - is a set of skills that are learnt and practiced over time, and most able-bodied people can reach a pretty okay level of competency in that regard if they truly dedicate themselves to the task. Being amazing at art is a lot more challenging, and the ability to produce inspiring works of art is limited to the talented.### Human: There is another side of art that's - IMO - just as important as the technical skill of drawing, and that's the perception of the artist. Literally the way they see the subject of their drawing.
As someone who always wished he could draw well growing up, I thought it was just never going to happen. Until one day friend of mine in HS who was a great artist heard me, and began to teach me the skills I needed to draw. Eventually I could draw and shade a very respectable eye. After that I started trying to draw other things, with very mixed results; mostly bad.
Then another artist friend of mine asked me some questions, and I started to understand why I'm not a good artist. She told me to describe a girl in class, which I did to the best of my ability.
However, it was the things that I *didn't* see that she would point out. To me, hair is hair. I either like it, or I don't, but I really don't *see* hair. If she asked me whether the girl's hair was curly or straight, I'd have to look again. What color eyes, how round or narrow they were, angle, eyebrows? How about light sources and shadows?
These things. I discovered, I just don't notice on their own. I simply see a whole person, not the things that make up that person. So, when I attempt to draw that person, or whatever, I get as far as an outline, and then everything inside is a mess.
It's not that I lack the skill, or the will to practice. It's that I lack the talent for seeing things in the same way an artist does. |
### Human: I think the mainstream's acceptance of marijuana and rejection of cigarettes is delusional to the degree of insanity. - CMV### Assistant: > THERE ARE NO CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT CIGARETTES ARE LESS HEALTHY THAN MARIJUANA OR VICE VERSA.
Actually, yes there are.
[Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848)### Human: That study is hardly conclusive. You'll note that the study says light to moderate users of marijuana experienced less negative effects than tobacco smokers. There is a slight problem here because we don't know whether they are comparing to a similar population of tobacco smokers, i.e. light to moderate users of tobacco. That conclusion could be the result of lumping all tobacco smokers together (including those who smoke <4 packs a day), which would be an unfair comparison.
There are other confounding factors as well. The study notes that marijuana users were generally more active than tobacco users, which could explain part of their improved respiratory function. As well, most of the marijuana users involved in the study were not heavy users and the study admits that it's data on heavy marijuana users is sketchy. In contrast, tobacco users tend to smoke more heavily than the marijuana users involved in the study. Finally, the method used by the researchers to determine respiratory function could be biased towards marijuana smokers. The study itself mentions when it discusses how the greater respiratory function in marijuana users could stem from their methods if inhaling the smoke (taking deep breaths and holding them).### Assistant: The amount of tobacco in a pack of cigs is about 15 to 20 grams. A pot smoker would pass out if they tried to smoke that in a day.### Human: While some highly tolerant users might be able to do that, for the most part I agree. That is one of the major flaws with this study.### Assistant: Like who? Willie nelson? No one is smoking 20 grams of weed a day. No one.### Human: Ok no one is smoking 20 grams a day then. But neither of your comments doing anything to address the health effects of marijuana smoke. It could very well be as damaging as tobacco smoke, but the effect is noticed less because users of marijuana smoke it less.### Assistant: The amount that people actually smoke matters. The question is not whether 100 cc of tobacco vs. pot smoke is worse for you. The question is whether actually using pot is worse than actually using tobacco. You could also frame it as level of harm per effective dose.
Look at it this way. Ingesting half an ounce of pure caffeine can be lethal. Ingesting half an ounce of sugar - a similar-looking substance, doesn't do much of anything. And yet, people are more often advised to cut sugar out of their diets than caffeine. What's important is how much you actually use and what happens to you as a result.
In actual use, Pot is less harmful than tobacco.
If you smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per year, you'll equal about how much pot smoking I do in terms of weight. Neither of us will feel any serious side effects.### Human: I never said that the amount was irrelevant; I specifically said otherwise in my previous comment. For me, the question was is it equally as harmful as cigarette smoke. If the harm is the same, then there is functionally no difference between smoking tobacco occasionally and smoking weed occasionally. Since there are individuals who smoke tobacco at levels comparable to marijuana, telling them that marijuana is safer is completely misleading (if each is equally harmful).### Assistant: That's true, but people who smoke that little tobacco are quite rare and therefore rightly considered less relevant to the discussion.### Human: On the contrary, I think it's quite relevant. The OP's post references the denigration of all tobacco smokers while marijuana is being promoted as healthier for all individuals. Thus, if the two are equally harmful at equal levels then the promotion of marijuana over tobacco is misleading or wrong, which confirms the OP's belief.### Assistant: One of the main reasons that it would be unhelpful to make a direct comparison like that is the physical addictiveness of tobacco. The fact that tobacco use directly leads to more tobacco use, and more tobacco use is more dangerous.
I'll cede that marijuana has been shown to be psychologically addictive, but that is an issue of human psychology, not the substance itself. |
### Human: CMV: Communism is bad for society and Capitalism, though flawed, is the best system to go by.### Assistant: > Although capitalism is flawed, I think that when balanced, it's the most ideal system of economics.
Balanced how?### Human: When, we prevent total monopolies. That prevents competition.### Assistant: What prevents "eliminating monopolies" from capitalism alienating my labor power and subjecting people to the laws of capital accumulation?
Also, you do know communist relations of production (i.e primitive communism) have existed in thousands of societies spread around human civilization?
Are you familiar with human history and socialist theory?### Human: It allows small businesses to flourish and allow companies to compete and evolve.
In the past we did share resources. But, this was before modern civilization. With the invention of farming, came the division of labor. A farmer would work on a man's field in exchange for food, water, or wealth.### Assistant: I don't agree with you but I will keep my arguments simple and short:
There are plenty of socialist theories which don't necessarily revolve around eliminating competition and markets. Individual anarchism, mutualism and market socialism are good examples of this.
As for "modern civilization" I think you have history wrong.
While there are off course examples where common land and socialized guilds were "voluntarily" broken up this wasn't the norm when it came to the transition to capitalism.
England is a good example where commoners were killed and expropriated through state violence to force them into the factories and wage labor.
This process was called primitive accumulation, you should look it up. |
### Human: CMV: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is a dangerous phrase that allowed American society get to the disappointing state that it is currently in.### Assistant: In my opinion, the problem is that people take "everyone is entitled to his opinion" to mean "everyone (especially me!) is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion."
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. You will not be denied employment for holding it (so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties). You will not be thrown in jail for expressing it (so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech).
It does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion. After all, if they think you're ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that's *their* opinion. And they're entitled to it. Right?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sorry DDB-, your comment has been removed:
> Comment Rule 1\. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1)
If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+1+Post+Appeal&message=DDB-+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p04r0/cmv_everyone_is_entitled_to_their_opinion_is_a/cmsitms\))### Human: The deleted comment was a reply to a comment.### Assistant: Oops. Should've been Rule 5. |
### Human: CMV: There is always a correct "ballpark" interpretation of religious doctrine.### Assistant: With Muhammed in particular he wrote in two different periods- in his early periods when he was in a weak position militarily (610–622, prophet of Mecca) and his later periods when he was militarily powerful and started attacking and raiding surrounding communities (622–632, ruler of Medina).
Power corrupts. His verses from the early era were much more supportive of peace. His verses from the later era of military expansion were much more warlike and brutal.
As such, people could support either interpretation depending on their position in life. If they were vulnerable, like many moderate muslims, they would support peaceful cohabitation. If they were militarily powerful like ISIS they can support warlike expansion, as Muhammed and his successors did, conquering the Arabic Peninsula and then his successors conquering much of the Christian world.### Human: Excuse my simplification, but it seems that Muhammed flip-flopped and wrote a new religion... So why do Muslims group themselves under one?### Assistant: They don't.
Muhammed was barely cold when the first major schism happened.### Human: By group themselves I meant both groups saying they follow Islam. I guess it's understandable that neither would want to give in and call it something else if they believe their interpretation is the true one, but this doesn't change the fact that they are interpreting a whole religion in majorly different ways.### Assistant: Take this sentence for example:
> I never said they took my money.
Depending on emphasis this sentence can have seven different interpretations.
> **I** never said they took my money.
> I **never** said they took my money.
> I never **said** they took my money.
> I never said **they** took my money.
> I never said they **took** my money.
> I never said they took **my** money.
> I never said they took my **money**.
So depending on how one reads the sentence, one can get desperately different meanings and interpretations. Extend this across an entire book and one can end up with radically diverging interpretations of the source text.
This is what happens with religious texts. Because all that is left of a prophet/messiah/religious leader's teachings thousands of years after their death is their writing, it is up to current scholars/preachers/laity to interpret the texts. Depending on what emphases they see, they find different interpretations and perceive different views and values. And because they are all working from the same text, as long as their interpretations are self-consistent, they are all valid expressions of the same religion, as the central basis of most religions (certainly the Abrahamic ones) is their text. It is not possible to conclude which ones are "right" because they are all consistent with the evidence available to them.### Human: I get what you're saying about the fact that there can be many ways to interpret written text, but doesn't this:
> they are all valid expressions of the same religion
overlook that the original teacher *did* have a specific interpretation that was intended? Even if we conclude that it is no longer possible to determine which interpretation is true to the teacher's intent (due to the shadows of history), how does it follow that both/all are therefore correct?
>the central basis of most religions is their text
Not wanting to assume, but I think this is probably why you say that anything based on the text could be considered correct. To clarify my philosophical objection above, I would counter that the basis of the religion is on the teaching of a teacher. The text just came along later when it was decided that writing it down would be the best way to memorialize the teaching. Text has its flaws and has never been as informative as vocal inflection and body language, but it was all that was available for recording until the last century. Religion is as much about the text as it is about the traditions/interpretations that have been carried down from generation to generation, from those who were around to hear from the teacher directly.### Assistant: > Even if we conclude that it is no longer possible to determine which interpretation is true to the teacher's intent (due to the shadows of history), how does it follow that both/all are therefore correct?
I would argue that without evidence to the contrary, any theological position may be valid. In other words, if you can't point out a reason why someone is incorrect in their interpretation, their interpretation must be as valid as yours.
>Religion is as much about the text as it is about the traditions/interpretations that have been carried down from generation to generation, from those who were around to hear from the teacher directly.
I agree with this sentence and it is a flaw of my original response that I did not include anything to that effect. I didn't mean to say that the religious text (this includes religions where the text exists purely orally) is all that makes a religion, but that the text is the central and defining aspect of most modern religions. Tradition is as important as the text, but the text is the anchor, what gives the tradition validity, at least in Abrahamic religions. |
### Human: CMV: I think mental health should be given similar educational weight to physical health in schools### Assistant: The problem I see here is that schools simply are not qualified to teach about mental health. Physical health is easy. There are objective facts that we can teach children. Too much sugar is bad for your teeth. Exercise is good for your heart. It's important to eat a balanced diet. These are very simple facts that anyone can teach, anyone can learn, and can't really be misconstrued.
Mental health is a totally different ball game. It's a sensitive subject for a lot of people. I, personally, wouldn't trust that schoolteachers could begin to try and teach kids about the subtle nuances of depression. It just isn't cut and dry. What could you even start to say to kids about mental health? The same things don't even apply to everyone the same way.### Human: I'm from Georgia, and went to a formerly military prep school. The president of my school jumped from a hotel balcony when I was in 8th grade. Our middle-school counselor/math teacher/JV football coach came into my English class in order to tell us that suicide was selfish and then left. Some people are not qualified to lecture on mental health issues.### Assistant: That is a serious problem with my proposal, I agree. Some teachers/people are shitty and lack the tact or skill to be able to deal with mental health issues well. But that can be a matter of proper training, choosing who actually teaches that part of the curriculum carefully etc. You'll always get the odd rotten apple but that doesn't mean the discussion or teaching of mental health issues to teens should be totally barred. Similarly if something as serious as a suicide among staff were to happen then the staff perhaps shouldn't be the ones to discuss it because they're probably grieving.### Human: Yeah, certainly. I didn't mean to torpedo your point so much as to provide a relevant anecdote, hence a half-qualified counselor at a Southern prep school. If anything, my neurotic, self-diagnosing, mental-illness-romanticizing, undergrad brain is proof enough of your main point that primary education is worthless when it comes to mental health.
On a related note, when I went to see my university counselor, her line of questioning was essentially "Are you suicidal? No? Good."### Assistant: That's another thing I hadn't thought of, actually, that a minority of people often do romanticise mental illness (tumblr, anyone?) in a way that is unhealthy for them and for people who actually suffer from mental illnesses. Teaching the relatively boring facts of brain chemistry might be able to help with that. If the gravity of mental health problems is explained, would that help people understand a bit more? One I'll have to think about probably.
Ugh. Shitty counselors might be worse than shitty teachers. Often I think it's that so many people have problems and there's not a huge amount of funding for mental illness that they're so overloaded they have to prioritise different people and problems. More mental health funding and support is crucial, especially in universities. |
### Human: I think that traditional gender roles are rooted in biology, and will never be completely erased. CMV.### Assistant: The problem with this reasoning is that history gives very little support for it. Of couse you have to define what you mean by "traditional gender roles", but let me give a few examples.
A few centruries ago, maths was considered a female field of study, as it was considered less complex than the more complex and therefore maculine field of science.
During the renaissance it was considered masculine to show emotions and to cry frequently and publicly.
The view of female sexuality has varied a lot through history, at one point women where painted as seductive people that led men in away from god, other times they where seen as having no sexuality at all.
The point here is that gender roles are largely socially constructed. This means that we can choose how we view and treat our fellow human beings, regardless of their gender.### Human: No.
Women need to survive the lengthy process of feeding and protecting a baby human.
Men need to provide for the woman and child.
These are the very most basic rules of life. If there were only two, these would be it. Men are simply incapable of feeding a child naturally. While some women may be fully capable of providing for their man and child, a man can not provide milk to a child. Again, this is the very most basic of rules.
The idea that we need to define what 'traditional gender roles' are is absurd. Traditional in this sense means, 'at the very most basic level, do we have roles based on gender?'
Of course we do, don't be silly.
The confusion comes when we try to apply these very basic gender traits in a world where hunting/surviving is hardly necessary. We have thousands and thousands of years of evolution telling our bodies one thing, modern society tells us another.
To me the only real solution to this is to accept that yes, in fact we do have roles at the very most basic level - after that it's a matter of preference. Maybe a woman wants to work and pump and store milk for her man and child. Maybe a man wants to work and a woman wants to stay at home. Maybe they both want to work and use daycare facilities. Doesn't matter - so long as both are on the same page, and of their own accord, then we're all sitting here arguing about jack squat.
TL:DR; Yes. Men and women have built-in gender roles. Any attempt at trying to blur that or act as if it isn't natural law is a lame attempt at correcting a perceived social injustice. Because that's exactly what it is - perceived.### Assistant: The only argument in your text is "this is so obvious that i do not need to explain it". In other words, you have no facts or reasoning backing up your claims. That means that it is pointless for me to debate with you because i can not refute something that you feel requires no proof.### Human: That's just it. I need nothing other than a man and woman to prove what I've said. I've made no assumptions, I've not speculated, nothing.
A man cannot feed a child. Without a woman to feed the child, the child dies.
Again, remember - THIS IS AT LIFES MOST BASIC LEVEL. We aren't talking about a specific century here, or different social norms. I'm talking about rules of life.
If it's pointless to debate me then it's pointless to even comment.
Your argument is "you are so off you don't even deserve a reply."
I would love to see you try and dispute anything I've said about the very most basic gender roles of life. But you can't and so you've resorted to attacking me.### Assistant: > A man cannot feed a child. Without a woman to feed the child, the child dies.
That's just untrue. There are children without mothers or any sort of motherly figures in their lives and they aren't all starving to death.### Human: Of course they are. Because of technology. Quit trying to confuse the conversation.
Formula, wet nursing, nanny's - these are all products of an advanced civilization. At the most basic level of life, these things don't exist.### Assistant: In tribal hunter-gatherer societies, which is about as basic as it gets for humans, women gatherers provided a large part of the food for the community, with other nutritional needs supplemented by the men's hunting practices. You state that the roles are established when there's only one man and one women; historically, humans, like many primates, haven't been going around in gender pairs but in small communities, making your limitations of the size of the group irrelevant at best. |
### Human: CMV: Transhumanism is the only viable path for humans to get through the coming 100 years of technological advancements.### Assistant: > The main reason I feel this way is because of evolution by natural selection. In this case it would be considered artificial evolution, but I believe it is still very much applicable. If you have an AI that can perform all tasks better than all humans, then what would be human's purpose. This would make humans obsolete until they eventually use brain-computer interfaces to gain the power that that AI has, and actually be able to compete.
Can you explain how you think the AI will out-compete us to extinction? Historically when this has happened it's been through things like food shortages.
What reason do we have to believe that our relationship with AI will have a "natural selection" aspect?### Human: What will humans do if all tasks will be able to be done by an AI?
That being said, even if your answer is along the lines of relax, there are other reasons why this level of optimism isn't really warranted. If an AI becomes generally intelligent, that will allow it to improve itself faster than a human would ever be able to. There's isn't any data to predict what an AI with that level of intelligence would choose to do when given a complex problem. If you asked it to solve the problem of world hunger, it may find that killing off all hungry people to be the best route. Of course, this is a bit of an extreme example, but I think it applies.
All in all, the number one driving force in evolution is intelligence, that's why Humans were able to rise to the top of the food chain.### Assistant: > What will humans do if all tasks will be able to be done by an AI?
Whatever we want?
> That being said, even if your answer is along the lines of relax, there are other reasons why this level of optimism isn't really warranted. If an AI becomes generally intelligent, that will allow it to improve itself faster than a human would ever be able to. There's isn't any data to predict what an AI with that level of intelligence would choose to do when given a complex problem. If you asked it to solve the problem of world hunger, it may find that killing off all hungry people to be the best route. Of course, this is a bit of an extreme example, but I think it applies.
You're right, there's a lot we don't know. Which is why I'm not sure why you're asserting that transhumanism is the *only viable* path forward.
> All in all, the number one driving force in evolution is intelligence, that's why Humans were able to rise to the top of the food chain.
Are robots going to start beating us in the food chain? This is where I get hung up. Why would an intelligence *necessarily* compete humans to extinction?### Human: It just seems more logical to merge with that AI and use it in our daily lives, and not have the latency of having to use an external device to access it.
Even if you're not sold on the AI Holocaust scenario, it would just make sense to play it safe. Not only because the AI may compete humans to extinction, but also because it is just overall more beneficial for the future of humanity.### Assistant: Or, we could go Butlerian Jihad and ban true AI, focusing instead on using humans to fulfill the roles that AI might, and isn't covered by non-sapient computers.
This wouldn't necessarily be the case, but it seems to follow logically that if you consider AI to be a threat, then the most certain solution is to eliminate the threat.### Human: How exactly do you regulate that?### Assistant: The specifics depend on how True AI is developed, but it always comes down to hardware, as AI necessariy must inhabit hardware.
If AI requires specialized hardware, you regulate the materials and manufacturing involved.
If it is purely a matter of software in its distinction from simple computer, it's more difficult, and would basically be prosecuting those creating AI and transporting the storage media on which True AI is located. If AI is a matter of software, that software must be stored on physical media.
Note that I am not particularly *advocating* this course of action, only laying it out as a possibility of how we could deal with advances in technology-based intelligences. There are too many unknowns to say that this is the best option, but it illustrates how transhumanism is far from the *only* option. |
### Human: I believe that a man should be able to force a woman to abort a baby if he can prove that the embryo is the result of she raping him, or she lying about being on BC. CMV### Assistant: So many practical problems with this idea.
Would there be a system of appeal? Gestation is only nine months long, these legal proceedings would have to be over and done with within 6 months.
What would the standard of proof be? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Clear & convincing evidence? How would one prove that someone lied about taking birth control? Would this be a civil case or a criminal case? Would the parent have a constitutional right to an appointed attorney? What would be the consequence to the father of bringing frivilous lawsuits?
At what trimester would the abortion be permissible? At what stage should the child's rights as an individual trump those of it's parents?### Human: This is pretty much everything that needs to be said.
Also, there's no precedent for this. Is there some epidemic of women raping men or lying about birth control then wanting to keep the baby that I'm not aware of? Why should society need to create this draconian law in the first place?
Further, this is how I feel, as a man, on birth control - My girlfriend is on birth control. If she is lying, then I guess I trusted the wrong girl. I'm CHOOSING to trust her and have unprotected sex anyway. If I wanted a 100% guarantee then I would either get a visectomy or use a condom anyway. By choosing to have unprotected sex I am accepting a risk (albeit small) that the woman I love is lying to me. But I am still responsible for my own behaviour.### Assistant: > Is there some epidemic of women raping men
While I disagree with the point of OP (this would be a law regarding sovereignty of the body, which I have problems with), forced insertion is actually more common than one would think.
Part of the difficulty in rape statistics is that most definitions of rape don't include "forced to insert" and only categorize it as "other sexual assault"
I really wish I had the stats on hand, as my (possibly flawed) recollection of this is that if you corrected for that difference, it works out to more like a 51/49 split.### Human: I find the 51/49 split difficult to believe and would love to see those completely unbiased statistics.### Assistant: As would I - if I'm wrong, I want to know it. I really do apologize that I can't dig up the relevant data, I hate it when people post inflammatory statistics and just bugger off.
[Edit: I found the comment that sparked this train of thought, maybe someone more familiar with the subject matter can tell me if the points have merit: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1k39vx/i_think_that_cases_of_femaleonmale_rape_are_an/cbkygnr]### Human: Last time I saw the stats it was almost 50/50, there were possibly a few more one way (less than ten) but since there were tens of thousands of cases it wouldn't matter much. |
### Human: CMV: America is already a police state, the public just hasn't admitted it yet.### Assistant: In a police state everything you describe would be the norm, not unusual circumstances.
Can you show that what you're using as examples (without citation) are in any way common enough to be considered anything other than exceptions to the rule?### Human: What about is getting closer and closer, sounds better?### Assistant: No, because it isn't.
Arrest rates are down across the board, transparency is increasing at an incredible pace.
It's becoming less of a police state than ever for the same reason that you think it's becoming worse.
Because now nothing can happen in the shadows, nothing can be done without public knowledge and reaction, every single isolated even causes a change away from police power and independence.
The only reason people are "losing privacy" is because they're willingly giving it up for convenience.
If we want to claim it's becoming a surveillance state, that's probably OK, but only because we are all so willing to give up our privacy, not because the government is trying to take it.### Human: > Because now nothing can happen in the shadows, nothing can be done without public knowledge and reaction, every single isolated even causes a change away from police power and independence.
How could you *possibly* know that?### Assistant: It's called a generalization, how could you not know that?### Human: It is called flat out speculation. |
### Human: CMV: People who take an "uncompromising" stance on anything are naive### Assistant: It depends on the subject.
If I take an uncompromising stance on something factual, such as water being vital to survival- there is no problem with thinking this.
If you're talking more politically, being uncompromising on some issues does make sense. For example if I were to say "There is no way that the government should be able to detain and torture citizens" would I be naive for saying this?
There are cases where saying that you are uncompromising are silly, but there are also quite a few cases(two outlined above) where there is nothing wrong with not compromising your view point.### Human: > If you're talking more politically, being uncompromising on some issues does make sense. For example if I were to say "There is no way that the government should be able to detain and torture citizens" would I be naive for saying this?
Yes, I would say that you are. While torture is absolutely abhorrent, if the government had definite knowledge that the torture of an individual would save one-thousand then I would say that they would (in most scenarios) be justified in doing so.### Assistant: It's impossible to know that torturing an individual will save thousands of lives. In fact, I'm surprised that you would even make that statement, since it would require an "uncompromising stance."### Human: To add on to this, the sort of information gained from torture subjects isn't the kind that a government would share with its citizens. So even if a government claimed that torture is necessary from utilitarian standpoint, the people have nothing other than the government's word on its efficacy.### Assistant: And also this is hypothetical - the evidence on torture indicates the opposite of what OP has hypothesized.
So in effect it is about the same as OP saying: "While water is absolutely necessary for life, if in the future a lifeform is found that may not require water to live then I would say that it would be a naive position to hold".
Or in other words, OP has shifted the goalposts sufficiently far that their assertion is correct.### Human: Except that's not shifting the goalposts that seems to be his point. It's naive to say water is completely required for life and hold that stance so firmly finding life that didn't require water wouldn't change your opinion### Assistant: If that's so then OP is wading into the shallow end of epistemology rather than actually discussing the assertion they made.
If that's the case then I'll excuse myself here - there's a cave with my name on it which is calling me. |
### Human: CMV: I think the mainstream American Christian culture has an undeserved victim mentality### Assistant: As a (somewhat conservative) Christian, I don't feel under attack politically. Frankly, the whole point of a democracy, and a lot of the point of our system, is a degree of majority rule; if 90 percent of the country is Zoroastrian, there will probably be a good deal of Zoroastrian policy going around. Also, I think it bears mentioning that this kind of thing is deeply personal, and subject to a huge variation in experiences.
All that being said, there are plenty of times when I feel under attack personally. One of my gauges for our culture as a whole is entertainment; sitcoms, stand up comedians, etc. I see a lot of people openly mocking religious people in general, and Christians in particular, for their beliefs and actions. I don't feel like a "victim", per se, because I don't feel like I have anything to actually fear, but it feels like it's pretty clear that a lot of people consider anyone religious to be stupid, or bigoted, or whatever. This has also varied a great deal according to what part of the country I've lived in, but no matter where I live, it does seem like the tables are turning, in an unhealthy way. My perception of history is that there was a time that atheists just wanted to be left in peace to believe what they wanted and not be derided for it (which is a perfectly reasonable desire); now, that's what I want. It feels like something bad from one group to another is now being used in the other direction.### Human: If laws were based on your religious values that other people are not members of, it would probably rub people the wrong way.... wouldn't it?### Assistant: I think that the way people vote for laws can be based on their religious convictions, which can be just as strong as secular convictions. If you think, say, charging interest is just wrong, or if you think it's wrong because it's a violation of religious law, you still think that. I don't think you can legislate morality, but I also don't care so much why people feel the way they do; I just care what they feel.### Human: >I don't think you can legislate morality
That hasn't stopped them from trying.### Assistant: That doesn't stop a lot of people from trying. I don't know that it's fair to put such people into any single category.### Human: Tell me, who are the single largest opponent to LGBT rights? And what is their basis for the opposition?### Assistant: I don't have facts in front of me, but it's almost certainly various conservative Christians. Of course, that's hardly fair to plenty of other Christians, and (far more importantly here) it's also far, far from the only example of people trying to legislate morality.### Human: Right. It's not the only example and it's not fair to all Christians.
You end up getting into a *No True Scotsman* argument at some point.
The truth is that *some* Christians are very opposed to LGBT rights and many other issues. They have no problem throwing money and support towards keeping things in line with their particular views of religion at the expense of everyone not of their religion.### Assistant: "some Christians are very opposed to LGBT rights and many other issues. They". I think we're agreeing here. You say SOME Christians, and then say THEY have no problem...etc. So it seems hardly fair to say "it doesn't stop them from trying" in reference to Christianity as a whole.### Human: I'd love to get a figure on the percentages of Christians that support some of the particular legislation. Unfortunately I don't have it.### Assistant: Neither do I. I'm not really even sure where someone could get an accurate figure on that. And I'm sure it shifts on this issue, and a lot of others, quite a lot over time. |
### Human: CMV: The foundations of math should be spatial, not merely axiomatic### Assistant: A lot of things in your post haven't been defined.
1. What would a 'spatial' foundation of mathematics be?
2. What does being "inside" the "topology of another object" mean?
And there's a fundamental question that still need to be answered:
3. What do these new foundations allow you to express that any of the classical foundations (set/category theory) don't? More generally, what good are they?### Human: > What would a 'spatial' foundation of mathematics be?
I'm not sure what you're asking. It would be the meaning behind math.
If someone wants to know what it *means* for a number to be a number, well, I can explain that. You have a linear sequence of displacements or translations. Each iteration has the exact same displacement between points, and each point has its own name (there are an infinite amount of symbols). That's quantity. If you throw arithmetic on it, you find 'holes' in quantity. Those are prime numbers. If you want to be able to refer to these numbers without going batshit insane, you develop a number system that uses arithmetic on a small set of symbols that you put into strings, which have grammatical meaning.
I can do this for anything that I mentioned in my really long post in this thread. (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/56a8gs/cmv_the_foundations_of_math_should_be_spatial_not/d8hnxlx)
>What does being "inside" the "topology of another object" mean?
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'mean' (sorry, but general statements like I am giving and perhaps some of the necessary general questions back are hard parse 100% accurately in text form without being in-person). I will assume you mean what it implies in my language.
It means there is overlap between the two objects. It comes in three forms: partial overlap (picture a Venn diagram; some of a is b, some of b is a, some of a is not b, some of b is not a), complete overlap in one way (one object is a complete subset of the other object), and complete overlap both ways (the objects are literally identical).
>What do these new foundations allow you to express that any of the classical foundations (set/category theory) don't? More generally, what good are they?
It's better for the same reason that Python is better than Brainfuck. That's what 'good' it is. You can express new things, but they won't have any name you are used to, so you'll have to create a new string-based language (or expand the existing one) to describe more higher-order spatial objects.### Assistant: I'll phrase my question differently. In mathematics we deal with statements and the verification of their truth via proofs. One of the main purposes of foundation stuff like axiomatized set theory is allowing us to express these proofs in a more formal and 'pure' setting, in order to counter objections from other mathematicians who are not convinced by our proofs.
Since you are proposing an alternative foundation, one of the things that is expected of you is that you explain how proofs would work in your new system. For example, how would you prove cantor's theorem about |R| > |N| in your setting, starting from the ground up? What kind of propositions would be easier to prove/formalize in your system?
Since we (the readers of your post) don't have the slightest idea how this could be done in your proposed system, there's not much we can do to "object" to it; mathematically, you haven't offered anything to sink teeth into.### Human: >Since we (the readers of your post) don't have the slightest idea how this could be done in your proposed system, there's not much we can do to "object" to it; mathematically, you haven't offered anything to sink teeth into.
I'm glad you said this because I think you're right. I think if I knew of anything to sink teeth into, I would have verified it all already. I'm looking for inconsistencies as you are. Someone mentions a new problem to me, and I think of a way to describe it. It probably makes them feel like a dog chasing his tail.
I guess part of my hope^1 was that people would confirm my feeling/suspicion that math currently has too many free lunches (because it's creative, unimaginably expansive, art, infinitely large, whatever they want to explain it with), and it lacks cohesiveness between branches, and therefore there's a *need* for something like this so long as its consistent. All that matters is consistency then, assuming you're not attempting to add new math that make it advantageous.
If it's going to translate 1:1 to current math, then there's two questions:
1. do you find any inconsistencies? does it correctly translate everything 1:1?
2. how do you verify consistency? how do you prove it's consistent, if you haven't found any inconsistencies in #1?
If it's not going to translate 1:1 to current math, then there's two questions, one related to the previous ones:
1. Can you still do everything important from the previous maths? you don't have to do *everything*, but you should have 1:1 for most things to even have a shot.
2. what is this new math that makes it worthwhile? (quite simply)
Footnote 1: Hell, part of my hope was that I'd be proven wrong, especially in an obvious way, because I'd like a resolution of some kind. It's tough being stuck in the middle, not ready to call it a kooky idea and not ready to confirm it as truth.### Assistant: I think I am interested in something more specific than you are. I'd like you to write a proof of a well-known theorem (e.g. |R| > |N|) in your new foundations. This proof should include all the relevant definitions and axiomatic assumptions, so that a mathematical audience unfamiliar with your theory would be able to follow and understand it. If you find yourself struggling with writing a clear proof of something that would've been readily provable in say, set theory, it is usually a good sign that your theory has issues, since mathematics is first and foremost about precise communication of ideas.
Once we have that in place, we can begin discussing whether your approach has merit. For example, one relevant question would be, how many of the definitions and propositions you introduce can be defined/proved using only the previous definitions (and without introducing new axiomatic components). A good foundation should have very few axioms/constructions (which should mostly be "obvious") proportional to the amount and quality of propositions that can be proved from it.### Human: Ok, I'm going to give this a shot tomorrow. I need to get some sleep. |
### Human: CMV:Cookies are far superior as a celebratory snack than cake or pie### Assistant: 2 things. First: Candles. You can't put birthday candles in cookies. If they are frosted with the right frosting, maybe, but then you're eliminating the portability benefit you get from cookies.
Secondly: Uniqueness/specialty. Yes, cookies are a much more convenient baked dessert, which means you're much more likely to buy them for a snack, have them at home, and eat them regularly. (I eat cookies way more often than I eat cake) It makes them much less of a treat and much more of a routine. That kind of takes the special-ness(?) out of the celebration. How often do you eat cake? Birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, grad parties, IE big gatherings. That's pretty much it, **EDIT: it is more inconvenient, which makes it rarer,** which makes cake much more of a treat, and makes the event much more sepcial. **EDIT: For example "Hey, its Bill's birthday, there's cookies in the conference room." "Shoot, I forgot. I just bought a cookie for a midmorning snakc, but I guess I'll have another one."**
If we didn't use cake for celebrations, when would we ever eat it?
Also, cupcakes eliminate a lot of the downside of normal cake. You can eat them with your hands, you can have many varieties of cupcake to please more people, and you can give and/or consume leftovers away more easily. They are more portable than normal cake, but adminitedly still more challenging than cookies.
EDIT 2: It just came to me, cake is like a turkey dinner at thanksgiving. I like turkey, but it's not my favorite, and its a shitload of work, time and effort to make. You could argue that steak on the grill is a superior meal to turkey in the oven, but then you're losing part of what makes thanksgiving thanksgiving.### Human: I agree that we have used cake as a traditional celebratory desert for a long time and it is associated with celebration. My argument is you cake has had its time in the spotlight and now we should become aware of the flaws in cake. The same way we are becoming aware of the flaws of marriage as custom between a man and a woman only. Times need to change. No longer should we be held restrained by cake simply because it can hold a candle upright and everyone expects it to be there. It's archaic!
It's uniqueness as a celebration no longer makes it unique. I will get tired of cake and i have gotten tired of it. There are too many celebrations that use cake and it's lost its flare.### Assistant: I really like cake, but I can understand why someone get tired of always having cake for celebrations. That being said, I don't think cookies are an adequate substitue for cake. As I said in my OP, cookies are so comonplace that they're not really special or a treat. I'd agree with replacing cake a more exotic dessert, like eclaires, macaroons, creme burlee, souffle, or something along that line. But If I went to a birthday party, and cookies were the featured dessert, it would be dissapointing.### Human: Very good points. I believe the events of a birthday party leading up to its normally known climax- the cutting and serving for the birthday cake- would be forever ruined by cookies. However, cookies are far superior in every other way.
Cookie sandwiches (like an oreo but with frosting and two full cookies) might be interesting, but there are other ways to make cookies fun and exciting. Not enough to compensate the loss of cake, but the value of the lack of cake is worth the value of the presence of cookies.
Some people may not like a particular type of cake being served. You can easily get tons of varieties of cookies without it being a bank-breaker as a series of cakes may be. Cookies please everyone. With cake if you're on a diet you need to ask for a small slice and may end up wasting most of your slice anyways. Everyone's fine with eating an entire cookie for a celebration (unless the diet is super strict but even then the cake would be out of the question as well).
Now, the cookies don't look as festive as cake, but if they are quality cookies and frosting/other toppings are involved, their presence highly outweighs the lack of cake.### Assistant: Plus look at all of the plates- all of that *uneaten* frosting |
### Human: CMV: Abortions and Childfree lifestyles should be incentivized.### Assistant: I think instead of supporting such a controversial issue such as abortion, the government should support more planned parenthood centres that focus on educating people on safe sex and whether or not they can realistically afford to have children at their point in life. Lots of unplanned pregnancies happen in poverty where lack of education is the main driving force.### Human: Well not simply abortion, I think incentivizing childfree lifestyles in general in those areas would probably be the overall best plan.### Assistant: I 100% agree. Tax exemptions for not having children would incentive childfree. Taking away tax exemptions for people having children would disincentive even more. Give a huge lump sum up front to people who choose to get sterilized. Provide better sex ed, good education regarding the costs of children, and access to birth control/abortion. BAM! Population crisis solved, which by the way is the root of most other problems plaguing humanity. Climate change? solved. Environmental degradation. solved. Not enough jobs for everyone. solved. Not enough housing for everyone. solved. and so on. I really think this would be a good idea and I believe India is already implementing this on some level. I do get shit for it when I express my opinion on this to other people. I can't really understand why though. The government isn't forcing you to do anything and you maintain complete free will. It's providing incentives to encourage certain behavior and people respond to incentives alot better than they do to disincentives.### Human: I share this opinion, and I also get shit for it. When you're talking with people, how do you approach it to try to avoid offending them?### Assistant: I stress that it would not be the government forcing you to do anything and that everything is of your own free will. Some people will just get uncomfortable anyway because it's a few steps away from eugenics. Fuck that. If we don't start proactively reducing the population, then one day the population will reduce violently and without control. |
### Human: CMV: Saying "Je Suis Charlie" is like saying "Support our troops" -- it does nothing but dodge the real issue### Assistant: > "Je Suis Charlie" pretty much just means "I'm against murdering journalists,"
That *could* be true, if the journalists the phrase is referring to weren't a specific group murdered for very specific reasons.
Meaning that, while "our troops" is a very large group, involved in multiple operations around the world, "Je suis Charlie" refers to a small group, violently murdered for well known reasons. This produce some kind of narrative, painting free speech against terror, in which people take position.
In consequence, the meaning of the slogan might be open to some measure of interpretation, but the spectrum is narrower than you seem to believe. "Do you support public blasphemy on a social and cultural level, on a "defend to the death your right to say it" level, or not at all?", well, I'm willing to bet that's what "Je suis Charlie" stands for, because that's the *reason* these people were killed.
Yes, it remains a slogan and slogan aren't the most complex of political position, but they're not meant to be.### Human: It's not about whether the slogan has a broad or specific meaning. The meaning the slogan has commits to is generic and palatable to the point of being functionally meaningless, and its gravity in the debate distracts from more meaningful discussion.### Assistant: Except it's not generic and palatable. As I said, it ties in to a very specific issue, involving specific people. By going all "Je suis Charlie", you're taking the side a polemic inducing paper, promoting satire and blasphemy. "I think public blasphemy should be protect under freedom of speech" is everything but generic and palatable. It basically mean "There is, or shouldn't be, anything sacred for the state".
This very sub has been crisscrossed by opposing views on the matter this last week. People died for that very reason.### Human: I would actually contend this point. I'm of the opinion that in fact it has become to mean simply killing journalists is bad, akin to OPs point. For evidence of this I would like to draw your attention to the variety of people who have supported this campaign. Consider the daily mail in full support of this who tried to have Franky Boyle charged because he made a joke about the queen, while I cannot remember the specific charge now, however, it was mentioned on this sub just 4 days ago http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2rst5v/frankie_boyle_on_twitter_im_reading_a_defence_of/. There are several other examples; consider the politicians standing up for this who tried pushed through the terrorism act 200. The labour government that introduced the religious and racial hatred act or the offensive behaviour at football matches (Scotland) act.
So my point becomes this, it cannot mean what you asserted it to mean because so many people who refuse to protect them values and would have people arrested, which is the highest form of public censure, support "je suis Charlie". So I feel you have not discharged the original point that the statement has become nothing more than a narrow, palatable slogan.### Assistant: Side question- are political cartoonists journalists?### Human: These days, I'd argue they're some of the few people left who are. It is far easier to find a cartoonist who will actually push the envelope, than a columnist. |
### Human: CMV: Bikes should not be allowed to use the full lane.### Assistant: > I even ride a bike sometimes, and when I do I stay completely in the shoulder
Most cyclist will do this when it is safe to do so (of course, some cyclist just ride in the middle of the road to make a point).
But if there is not sufficient room in the lane for a car, plus a bike, plus 3-4 feet (one meter) of passing space, then it is safer for the cyclist to ride in the middle of the lane. The problem with riding far to the right on a narrow lane road is that cars will still try to pass the cyclist when it isn't safe.
That means, in the *best* case scenario, the car is going to have to pass closer than 3-4 feet which is dangerous if the bike needs to move around debris in the road, hits a rut in the road, or whatever. In a worst-case scenario, the car uses *all* that 3-4 feet plus a little more and ends up hitting the bike.
By riding in the middle of the lane, it stops the car from attempting to pass unless it can use the other lane to complete the pass. And if the other lane is open, then the passing car can use that full lane and provide plenty of space to keep the cyclist safe.### Human: We need to address the issue of a cyclist disobeying the speed limit. I'm not familiar with the specific laws, but i'm assuming a cyclist can legally ride a bike at 15mph in the middle of a 30mph lane. I see it happen all the time in the Bay Area, but have never heard of any cyclist getting in trouble for doing so. Personally, i think any vehicle on the road must obey the speed limit no matter what and would appreciate it if someone could change my view.### Assistant: The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum, so yes it is perfectly acceptable for a bicycle to ride at 15 mph in a 30 mph lane.### Human: I believe the law that states **"no driver is permitted to drive on a highway at such a slow speed as to become a block or impediment to the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, unless the speed limit has been reduced by signs posted in compliance with the law"** should be applied to every road. A cyclist blocking traffic on a 30mph while riding a bike at 15mph should not be on that road. It is not acceptable for them to block traffic even though it is legal for them to do so.### Assistant: Since when are most roads highways? Some interstates and highways have minimum speed limits, but most streets/roads don't.
Edit: it's no different than tractors or farm vehicles or scooters on roads.### Human: That's why I said we should apply the minimum speed law to all roads, not just highways. I can't justify a vehicle moving well below the speed limit unless it's a necessity such as something for construction or development. |
### Human: I believe that all citizens should have to engage in regular physical activity if they want access to a universal healthcare system. The same applies to senior citizens while they have the ability - CMV### Assistant: Your approach seems punitive: Do _____ or else you won't get something you want. Furthermore, I would imagine the costs of enforcing such a system would outweigh the gains.
I prefer to solve these kind of problems in a different way. Rather than the carrot or the stick method, why don't you try and make good behavior easier on people. For example: rather than mandating that everyone stop eating fast food, why not work with food producers to lower the cost of healthy food. In the United States obesity is largely a poverty issue: it's way cheaper and quicker to feed a family of 5 at McDonalds than it is to cook up three square healthy meals a day. So rather than punishing people who don't have the time and resources to maintain a healthy lifestyle, why not make a healthy lifestyle more readily achievable. The government could invest (more) in public fitness centers where people can go an work out for free.
While there will still always be people who mooch off the system and make poor decisions, I find it more effective to either reward good behavior or make good behavior easier to carry out.
Edit: Maybe something else would be some sort of tax credit for healthy lifestyle. I haven't really thought out the details for these proposals, as that's not really my job, I just think my direction is a little more productive.### Human: >some sort of tax credit for healthy lifestyle.
I like this idea, as it has a more positive spin than mine, but would it essentially be any different from what I suggested?### Assistant: People complain less when things are perceived as an optional bonus rather than a mandated requirement.
Additionally, your proposal wouldn't reduce obesity, it would just cause a bunch of sick obese people. People don't really *choose* to be obese. They just end up that way due to how they perceive and understand the world. Obesity just happens over time as they follow the way their brain tells them to eat (from how they were raised, for instance) given the food that is available. So, what you are suggesting is removing psychological services from people whose mentality causes them to be obese.
You're essentially punishing someone for not being able to solve a complex math problem, obese people who want to be thin often can't even perceive ways of how to go about becoming thinner, especially since the health industry (like exercise tapes) tries its hardest to confuse people on how to be healthy. If you were to ask an obese person how to be thinner, they are more likely to say stuff like "drink egg yolks", "mall walking", "thighmaster", "using electricity to work out muscles" rather than "don't eat in front of the computer", "drink more water", etc.
It would be better to: A. have people be more knowledgeable about how nutrition works (and not how **healthy** the food is, I'm talking ways of eating food that are healthy). This is hard to do as food companies and the health industry rely on people not knowing how nutrition works. B. **increased** medical services, especially psychological, to help people combat obesity. This is hard to implement as there is a stigma against mental health (at least in the US).### Human: Firstly, I don't accept your suggestion (I might be reading it wrongly) that obesity is not due to a lack of exercise.
Secondly, I'm suggesting something like two periods of pulse-raising activity for 30 minutes per week, rather than saying 'only patients under 200 pounds get free treatment'.### Assistant: >Firstly, I don't accept your suggestion (I might be reading it wrongly) that obesity is not due to a lack of exercise.
You don't have to accept it, but you'd be wrong. Many studies support the finding that there are several factors that contribute to obesity outside of lack of exercise. The "calories out > calories in" approach to weight loss is correct on a technical level but deceptively simple if you don't take those other factors into account. |
### Human: CMV: "I urge you to seek therapy" is the most useless advice one can give on /r/relationships.### Assistant: If the situation is complex, reddit will not be able to give proper advice. A professional takes time to understand your situation and has lots of training and experience to give proper advice and help you through your problems. Reddit can help only with the simple stuff and general advice.
Think of it this way: If somebody comes to reddit with a simple tooth problem - like "my gums bleed often". Reddit can help with general advice, like "floss more". But if somebody comes with a tooth abscess, the general advice they'll get is to see a dentist.
It doesn't matter that dentists are expensive and not covered in your insurance. It doesn't matter it's not what you wanted to hear and that you wanted your abscess gone for free. The only sound advice is to see a dentist. You see this as redditors not being helpful, but it's exactly the opposite. The advice to see dentist is the help the person needed.### Human: Except therapists are shit at giving advice too. So what if they're "trained" or "experienced", if they can't help a patient in any meaninful way, they are worse than useless. the /r/relationships herdmind has blind trust in therapists though, which is despicable.### Assistant: Some dentists, doctors, and surgeons are shit too. Does that mean their entire profession is worthless? That's an absurd straw man argument.### Human: Yes, the entire profession is worthless, excluding the retraining or training subgroups.### Assistant: That's a big assertion. What makes you think that?### Human: the fact that it hasn't cured a single person of depression in any meaningful way. or the fact that the kind of people who opt for being therapists don't have the capabilities to get to the heart of problems, let alone find effective solutions to them. and more.### Assistant: >cured a single person of depression
You wanna cite that? Because last time I checked, my therapist helped me remedy my depression rather well. But I'm open to what you have to say about everyone, and the information that backs it up.### Human: remedy =/= cure. and I know because I know what a real cure looks like. which therapists will never have access to.### Assistant: ohhhh, youre a troll. Now I see. |
### Human: I believe to buy a gun one must receive a license by taken a written and field exam similar to that of obtaining a driver's license. CMV### Assistant: I don't see what you could put on any universal test that either couldn't be conveyed very, very simply or would be too specific to apply to everyone. I learned the Five Weapon Safety Rules:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
2. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire
4. Keep the weapon on "Safe" until you intend to fire
5. Know your target and what lies beyond
You could add things about proper storage, but that varies based on who has potential access. You could add things about proper loading/unloading, but that varies based on firearm. You could require range time to familiarize the owner with the weapon, but I don't think we should deny someone the right to own a gun just because they aren't very good at firing it.
Gun safety eventually boils down to abiding by fairly simple rules *all the time*. I don't see how any test can justify the waste of time and money it would inevitably cause, especially when you realize that a test doesn't inculcate behavior. A test determines whether you know what you ought to do, not whether you'll do it. I think most gun owners know the principles of safety and that most accidents happen when people know those principles and disregard them.
And I think you're making a false equivalency between driving and gun ownership. We teach the specifics of driving because it is a very public activity governed by very specific laws that are not always intuitive. The determination of who has right-of-way in any given situation would be very difficult to make if we weren't instructed beforehand on what the law says. If someone has never driven before, "don't pass a semi in the right lane" and "turn right on a red light if you can" are concepts that wouldn't be obvious to you at all.### Human: >deny someone the right to own a gun **just because they aren't very good at firing it.**
Denying someone the right to drive a car *just* because they can't keep it on the road.### Assistant: Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun is a right.
I am not commenting on whether or not that is fair or balanced, just that it is simply what is.### Human: This line of argument (which Des Moines recently used to grant concealed carry permits to BLIND people) strikes me as a very good argument against owning a gun being a right.### Assistant: But you don't have to fire a gun to use it for self defense. There are many cases of Defensive Gun Use where just the act of showing someone a weapon prevents crime. Usually if someone pulls out a gun to defend themselves, the aggressor surrenders or flees.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use ) |
### Human: CMV: If a business has two individual bathrooms, both should be unisex bathrooms### Assistant: Wait wait... people actually care about the gender of a person using a *single-person* washroom?
As a man I use the women's bathroom all the time without any issues. And I've seen women use the men's too without anyone so much as looking twice. How can a single-person restroom even have a gender assigned to it?
Where I live, most of them are labelled with no gender sign, or have a man/woman/wheelchair/baby sign on the door.### Human: I work in engineering. My company is about 98% male, yet they still have gendered single person restrooms. The ladies' room (which is nearly always empty) has a sign on the front advising disciplinary action will be taken against men using it. Load of bullshit if you ask me.### Assistant: This sounds like compliance with legal relations, if you have more than a certain number of employees you are required by law to have separate bathrooms for both genders.
The number is low too, like 8 to 15### Human: Do you have a source for this? it just seems weird to me### Assistant: If it is accurate, then that law should change. I once suggested this at a pet store I worked at with gendered one person bathrooms and I got some weird looks. At the time, my only reason for suggesting it was a logical, legistical one.### Human: The tricky thing is, building codes tend to be more of a city/county thing as opposed to a state/national thing, so while you might have one area that changes, it would take a long time to become a nationwide trend. That's not to say I'm opposed to the change, just saying it would take a while to get traction in enough areas to effect a significant slice of the population. |
### Human: CMV: 'To catch a predator' is wrong and ruins people's lives### Assistant: Do you sincerely think that anyone on this show goes to these houses without the intention of having sex with a minor? Yes they get caught before actually committing this act, but the intention is still absolutely there. If someone attempts to rob a bank but gets caught in the process, are they all of the sudden innocent because they didn't get away with any money?
> The tv show 'to catch a predator' is wrong and ruins people's lives.
You know what else ruins people's lives? Minors who don't know any better having sex with adults. If the people on To Catch a Predator are willing to go to these houses to have sex with a minor, what makes you think that they wouldn't do so another time, or that they haven't done so in the past? This isn't just a pedophile being attracted to children, it's a pedophile acting on these attractions and urges. Just because they ended up on a TV show instead of in bed with a minor doesn't change the fact that these people are acting on their urges which is something that they deserve to be arrested for.### Human: Its an adult having adult conversations, pretending to be a minor. They coerce a person into feeling attracted to them, make sexual advances, and then convince them to come over. Its not like they were on club penguin and convinced a child to let them come over while dady is away. Its a full grown adult seducing another adult all with the exception they are lying about their age. They create the illusion that a mature, sexually active, and consenting individual wants their attention. I think its fucked up.### Assistant: On the other side of it is someone who is trying to have sex with a minor and intends on doing so. I think that is more fucked up.### Human: Well we both do t know the intentions of the guy originally. He could have been trying to get laid by.. anyone, and was approached by a "minor". The chatrooms these people go to aren't labeled "teen only" or something similar.### Assistant: If he was trying to get laid by anyone then he should have stopped talking to the person who said that she was a minor. |
### Human: CMV: I think DJs get far too much praise for what they do.### Assistant: Firstly, let us set the guidelines for a DJ. Are you referring to the likes of Deadmau5, David Guetta, Skrillex or Tiesto? These men are all musical producers; although their live performances may be "men pressing buttons", their creative skills are in the studio. To sell their creative talents it is necessary for them to perform and display - as it is for any artist - and so they have their CDJ decks and computers at festivals like Ultra, and they perform to their fans.
But, in the case of a night club/radio DJ, don't relate a DJ to a projectionist. Instead, imagine them as an aural chef.
If you and famous DJ X are given 100 songs, you can both play about 5 hours of music. Equally, if you and Chef Z are given 20 ingredients, you can make a 3 course meal. Just as you may actually understand the peanut butter does not go well with venison, you may also have enough of an ear for music to know not to blend staying alive in to like a G6.
But the DJ has still mastered combining songs, in the same way that the chef has mastered combining tastes. They know how to watch the crowds reaction to tempo, tone and genre, like a chef watches heat, spice and flavor of a broth in a pot. A chef at a Michelin star restaurant will become famous for his quality dishes, a DJ at a super club for this quality mixes.
Yes, they also exist to be a master of ceremonies, but they are themselves an artist. A chef has not raised the chickens he serves in his dishes, just as the DJ has not created the music, but it is the awareness and synchronization with their mediums that makes them deserving of credit.### Human: Just going to say that it's totally okay to blend [Staying Alive into Another Brick In the Wall.](http://youtu.be/U13xOvDa19U)### Assistant: I've listened to this like 8 times in a row.### Human: You should probably go /r/outside.### Assistant: I was at work :( They wouldn't let go go /r/outside yet. |
### Human: Memes and /r/adviceanimals are bad for reddit in that they have lowered the quality of posts, comments, and visitors. CMV.### Assistant: People don't always come to Reddit for the same reason you do, whatever that reason may be. People come here to meet people, they come for information, they come to socialize, they come for entertainment, to list a few.
I understand where you're coming from, that the quality of discussion on r/adviceanimals is shit. I agree with you. *But I don't go there looking for quality discussion.* Rather than trying to instigate a change, I think you should be thankful that most of the bullshit is confined, for the most part, to a single sub.
If you think the mindset of r/adviceanimals is spilling over into other subs, you should be writing to the moderators of those subs. It is their role to moderate to the rules of their sub. If you are unhappy with the rules of the sub because they permit memes and other nonsense, you are always free to start your own sub and moderate/enlist people to moderate it the way you prefer.### Human: Very few subs have strict standards for high-quality posts. The science mods are great at doing it, this mod does fairly well, but even in this post I've received a lot of replies that simply tell me to unsubscribe, as if that was in any way appropriate for the sub. So yes, moderation does help, but it isn't a cure-all.
Have you been on Reddit long enough to know what it was like for the first couple of years? Anybody who has been around since then can't possibly disagree with the fact that the site has been almost universally "dumbed down" the last several years, and a large culprit is the crowd that is attracted my memes and /r/adviceanimals, which is front-paged and tantamount to a blessing or at least advertisement from Reddit itself.
I just don't see the mindset of /r/adviceanimals to be as contained as you do. I see it spilling over, dramatically so, especially once you consider how this site used to be.### Assistant: > Anybody who has been around since then can't possibly disagree with the fact that the site has been almost universally "dumbed down" the last several years, and a large culprit is the crowd that is attracted my memes and /r/adviceanimals, which is front-paged and tantamount to a blessing or at least advertisement from Reddit itself.
I can disagree. Reddit was never the bastion of higher thinking that people from the 'old days' think it was. There was more junk that specifically catered to people's interests, but it was still junk. Now there is a wider appeal to the site in general, and there is proportionally the same amount of junk, but users disagree on what is junk and what is legit content.
I think posting bash.org quotes and ripping on Digg and 4chan is junk, but there was plenty of that going on before the Digg Event Horizon when the refugee crisis started.
Reddit is large. The larger the community, the more stuff you will personally find to be irrelevant. That's just life. It has nothing to do with the specific type of meme being used. For a while it was rage faces. That died off. But while they were popular, there were no end of posts about how they were the death of reddit too.
I would argue that Advice Animals are good for reddit, because they are a symptom of wider audience appeal for the site in general and, axiomatically, the bigger the site gets, the better.
The onus is on you to ignore content you find uninteresting, downvote content you deep inappropriate and moderate subs that you are a mod for in whatever way seems best to you.
I personally believe that many users, especially people from "back in the day" take themselves far too seriously. Heavy moderation is not what reddit needs. AskScience is now just a sub full of experts in various fields talking to each other, answering the same questions over and over. What good does that serve?
Subs that have a specfic purpose are doing a fine job of keeping the content clear - AskReddit, ELI5, Fitness, World News, Science... you don't see junk posts there (at least not of this variety).
Yeah, pics has a lot of that sort of thing, but pics is a giant heap of users posting whatever they have laying around to see if anyone is interested. It's not like the shit that goes on there is the start of any new epidemic.### Human: Jan 4, 2006. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060104002930/http://reddit.com/ hmmm.. No advice animals, no shitposts.### Assistant: And as we all know, absolutely nothing else has changed since 2006 on reddit, and therefore the variable has been isolated, and therefore we can claim causation.### Human: Keep looking forward closer to when /r/adviceanimals was made. You'll see it.### Assistant: You aren't getting it...
The problems you're associating with /r/adviceanimals is just a problem that happens when a site gets big, and rewards easily digestible content.
This happens alongside the emergence of new subs, not because of them.
Making new subs often slows this down, by the way.### Human: >Rewards easily digestible content
Like making /r/adviceanimals a default sub.### Assistant: No... Making something a default is not a very big reward. It's a business decision (although a pretty insignificant one). I meant the algorithms they use to determine which posts are promoted higher on the page, thereby rewarding (though karma) some types of posts over others.
People get utility from karma, whether they should or not.
Once something is submitted, 2 main things are taken into account.
1) The difference of upvotes to downvotes, the higher the better.
2) How fast these were earned, the higher the better.
So, if an article is submitted and it takes a person 10 minutes to read, and then upvote it, it's unlikely to rise to the front page when there are many posts in the sub.
When there are few posts (and few users) in the sub, the second point matters very little, because most non-spam posts reach the front page anyways, regardless of the time it takes to digest it. |
### Human: CMV: One cannot say they truly believe in a meritocracy if they don't believe in quality public education and an estate tax.### Assistant: I do not support an estate tax. I work a civil service job and earn a middle class wage. However, I learned from the mistakes of those before me and have been making what I believe to be wise decisions with my money. In my death my heirs would stand to inherit a not insignificant sum.
I saved and invested that money after it was taxed. I don't play accounting games or do shady things with my taxes. Is it "fair and equitable" to tax that money again when it's passed on? Why should I, or my heirs, be penalized because I lived well and was smart with my money.
As an aside, I went to a terrible public school, worked my way through a community college, and earned every dollar I've made.### Human: Yes, but your children have not done these things. The existence of an estate tax currently past $5 million clearly has not demotivated you. This line is drawn at $5 million because it maintains the incentive to work for your children's future while disincentivizing the hoarding of familial wealth that has a bad long term effect on the country while raising money. I dont see how my thesis would imply I want to disintegrate this line in the sand.### Assistant: I respectfully disagree. Taking from one who's earned it, wether directly or by proxy, and giving it away so everyone can benefit from the fruits of one person's labor is dangerous.
What happens when everyone decides it's easier to do less but still get the same benefit? Then you start seeing that line get pushed back.### Human: This is an argument against taxation in the first place. Is there a country or community you have in mind that follows your idea of what a society should look like?### Assistant: I have no argument against taxation. My career is tax funded. I appreciate the need for tax revenue.
My argument is against inequitable taxes. We currently live in a society where you can pay zero income tax and get a substantial "refund".
I want to keep what I earn and do with it what I please. This is not an argument against taxation. My earnings are what I keep after taxing. My argument was against the continual taxing of those same dollars so life is more fair to those who did not or could not earn them.
The drive to do well, for my family, is what motivates me to work harder. Being told my family shouldn't keep it because they didn't earn it takes away that motivation and creates a wider divide.### Human: Once again, you are making the case that your money should go to those that have not earned your money because the money (past 5 mill) should stay with those who have not earned it. This is internally inconsistent.### Assistant: I'm saying it's mine and I should be able to do with it what I choose. No inconsistency.
You are saying I should take it from those who didn't earn it and give it to others who didn't earn it.### Human: Yes, because those people have exactly equal claim to it and the negative externalities of unassailable familial wealth is pretty large, and not meritocratic.### Assistant: I guess that's where the division lies. You say they have equal right to it; I disagree.
I appreciate your conversation. Even though we disagree I'm glad it was civil.### Human: Why do you think they have more right to it? I appreciate the conversation too.### Assistant: I. I have a right to it. I worked for it, I sacrificed to grow it into something larger, and I should get to say where it goes.
My argument is not that my family is more precious than any other as has more right to success and wealth. My argument is that I did all of this, not for me, but for them. Your contention that others have as much a right to it devalues all my work and struggle to build it.
I do not foresee my family having a problem with this, personally. I can't imagine a scenario where they are above the cap. It's the philosophy behind it that I can't endorse.
I am who I am today because I had to struggle and I learned the value of things. I want the same equal society. However, I think doing it in this manner takes away the value of one's personal effort and creates huge divides in society.### Human: I can't help thinking this comes back to taxes. Was it not your choice to earn money that is taxable income, as it is your choice to earn money that is taxable estate?
I want to say your devotion to family is admirable, but at some point Donald Trump would have to realize being a nepotist is not meritocratic. At a certain threshold, the desire to give your children wealth is nepotistic, and society has set that line.### Assistant: It was my choice to earn money, just as it is the choice of some to not earn and simply exist on the charity of others.
The death taxes, seem to me, an unjust penalty on those who did well. Again, this is not an anti-tax position. Many, if not all, of the same people affected by this tax already pay a large tax bill.
In short it sounds to me like, "Dave, you worked hard all your life and were very successful. Now that you've died, your children will not see all of that money because we're going to give it to people lawmakers have decided deserve it more".
I understand your position and, believe it or not, agree that we should give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. I do not agree on the method. Raising half of society artificially while pulling down the other half cannot end well, as I see it.
Edit- Suppose a person from the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder strikes oil, wins the lottery, etc. They begin to forever change their family tree and level the playing field for themselves. Just as they get to the plateau, this person dies. Should this family be taxed the same way? Forced back down a few rungs on the ladder they just struggled with and finally conquered?### Human: It is your choice to earn more money in a country that has an estate tax as well though, right? We have high marginal tax rates because we have no other current method besides an estate tax to reduce the hoarding of wealth within families and that rate seems to punish high earners as well. Furthermore, we already double-tax in many different ways, including sales taxes, and property taxes with the existence of prop 13 that punishes new earners.
I just have less sympathy for that man, I guess. I tend to think giving 5 million dollars to each of 3 children without even seeing a tax is enough to reap the benefits of winning the lottery. I think society has drawn the line in a prudent place. It is not drawn because our representatives are sadistic motherfuckers, it is drawn because concentrated and self-propagating wealth with little velocity is really bad for the economy and the sixth million of dollars has much higher utility to the poor than the already rich children. I am willing to listen if you have a better idea for a method that can raise funds more effectively, and I guess we already know this, but I would rather my money be taken after I die than during my life. |
### Human: CMV: The vastness of space does not guarantee the existence of extraterrestrial life.### Assistant: "Almost certainly" is very different from a guarantee.
Given a large enough sample, we are forced to assume some randomness. No, we don't know the probability of any individual planet having life on it, but when we're dealing with billions of them, the necessary probability for it to make the whole concept "likely", isn't very high.
We don't know these probabilities for sure, but we have a level of confidence that they are a lot higher than 1 in a trillion, which is what gives rise to these claims that it's almost certain. If we had good reason to believe that there was truly something special about Earth, then we would be more cautious in those estimates, but we don't.
To our knowledge, there's absolutely nothing unique about this planet, or this solar system, or this galaxy, or anything else. The building blocks of life should have formed in any other system just the same way they have in ours.
So as a result, we can say that the overall probability of life being somewhere else out there, within this range of conditions that made life possible here, is pretty damn high.### Human: > The building blocks of life should have formed in any other system just the same way they have in ours.
I don't understand this claim here. To my knowledge we've not ever made life out of non-life, so how do we know what the building blocks of life even are? We might know what chemicals we're made of, but we don't really know the process of how those chemicals became animated. How can we be certain that them just existing makes it likely for life to form when we don't know what that process *is* much less the exact conditions required for it to occur?### Assistant: The processes of "life from non life", as you put it, aren't fully understood, but that doesn't mean we don't know of at least one iteration. While I can't recall the source, I personally remember of successful experiments in controlled settings simulating primordial earth that resulted in what could be called "life from non life". I'm being vague here because I'm aware this is purely anecdotal, I simply don't have the means to source my claim yet.
My sticking point to the original claim, is that there is absolutely no reason or precedent to think that life HAS TO form the same way it did on earth. That's why the qualifier "life as we know it" exists### Human: > While I can't recall the source, I personally remember of successful experiments in controlled settings simulating primordial earth that resulted in what could be called "life from non life".
Can't say I've ever read anything like that. Would be very interested to read about such an experiment.
> there is absolutely no reason or precedent to think that life HAS TO form the same way it did on earth
I'd argue the precedent is that it's the only example of life that we're currently aware of. Any theories as to other means of life forming is purely speculation without an example or experiment to back it. I don't really find "well this *might* work" to be terribly compelling evidence for how it has/would/could occur.
Which actually brings to mind another issue I have with this line of reasoning. It seems to me we only barely have a grasp on what constitutes "life" as we currently know it. What it means to be alive, and at what point life begins, is, to my knowledge still highly contended concepts, so how on earth could we begin to speculate on completely different forms of life when we only barely understand the life we *do* know of?
Basically, I feel like first we need to know what life even *is*, then we need to know at least one way to create it, and *then* we can start to put a probability on it forming on it's own (which would increase with every subsequent way we discover it can be created). It seems to me that all this talk of life being likely or unlikely is jumping the shark quite a bit.### Assistant: >>While I can't recall the source, I personally remember of successful experiments in controlled settings simulating primordial earth that resulted in what could be called "life from non life".
>Can't say I've ever read anything like that. Would be very interested to read about such an experiment.
He might be talking about the [Miller-Urey experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment), in which amino acids were created by adding a spark to conditions thought to be like those of early Earth.### Human: Serious question: are amino acids considered "alive"? I'm under the impression that they're not, but I admit, I'm not terribly knowledgeable about them.### Assistant: No, but they're a precursor to life.
Before you can run, you have to walk, before you walk, you have to crawl, and before you crawl, you have to wiggle around.
Amino acids are wiggling around, a prokaryotic bacterium is running.### Human: But do we know the process for amino acids to become what we would consider "life"? How does the building blocks existing make it likely that they would be assembled, so to speak? |
### Human: CMV: Encouraging young people to pursue the skilled trades is generally bad advice.### Assistant: Some people simply can't do a desk job. It's not that they are physically or intellectually incapable of doing a desk job, it's that they prefer to work with their hands and would be rather unhappy chained to a desk.
I happen to be a computer scientist, but my brother has an affinity for trades. He currently attends a technical high school and is on the fence about going to college. It's not that he is incapable of completing desk jobs, he simply would be unhappy doing so.
I think you are correct that the skilled trade jobs are much more difficult when you are 40 or 50, which is why he is trying to take the management approach. He starts working as a machinist at a shop and then climbs the shop's management ladder or opens his own shop.
Really, at the end of the day, doing what makes you happy matters. I think that's why people major in English or Theater knowing full well they probably won't get a job in that field: they do it to make themselves happy.### Human: >Really, at the end of the day, doing what makes you happy matters.
I disagree. At the end of the day, paying your bills and feeding you and yours matters.### Assistant: Does it though? Personally I'd rather much have a happy life compared to a successful life, even if it means cutting my life short.### Human: I'm not talking about being successful. I'm talking about paying your bills and feeding yourself.### Assistant: Well if you aren't paying the bills and feeding yourself, then you probably aren't happy.### Human: If you're doing neither of those things, you don't have time for happy or sad. |
### Human: CMV:Reddit has been primarily racist in regards to what is happening in Ferguson (repost as I broke rule E, hope this is okay!)### Assistant: Reddit is a large community. Given the racially-charged nature of recent events, it's not at all surprising that you can readily find examples of overt racism, some of which are undoubtedly trolls and others of which are undoubtedly genuine.
But some of the examples you give are not racist. They are instead examples of people saying negative or harsh things about people who happen to be black. For example, it may be unfair or untrue to say that a black 12 year old shot by police with an airsoft gun brought it on himself, but it's not inherently racist. Likewise, questioning the moral integrity of people breaking into liquor stores and burning down restaurants is not inherently racist. Calling these things racist is like saying it's racist to call President Obama an idiot.
In any event, in my experience, you're likely to find substantially more overt racism on other sites based on user-generated content than reddit.### Human: I would say that this is a racist bent on some of the defaults. I person posted that he had gotten some mistreatment from black people, some looks, some racial slurs. I made a comment that What is happening to you is similar to what has happen to black people in US history, which is a true statement. Mass down votes sent my way.
I have to agree with the OP here that while there are some valid points to discuss, there does seem to be a racist slant to of a lot of the comments being made.### Assistant: It's a true statement but [what was the point](http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2ni4xy/i_dont_like_to_admit_it_but/cmdztji?context=3)? People 200 years ago were treated poorly so he should be treated poorly too? I just don't understand you you felt the need to comment that. I don't think you were downvoted because people disagreed with you as much as you added nothing to the discussion.
I think you also got some downvotes because of [the guy who commented](http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2ni4xy/i_dont_like_to_admit_it_but/cmdzdbq) before the guy you replied too. That happens sometimes. You have to be careful when you enter a thread and seem to be siding with the troll.### Human: Two hundred years ago? How about the 1960's
My point was to have this person identify with those who in historical terms were treated exactly like him. He felt outraged because it lasted days. How would he feel if this was his life. I wanted to ask him how it felt to be treated in a certain way because of his race?
That's a fair question to ask.### Assistant: The 1960's? How about last month?### Human: That's true as well. I was more talking about the thongs of people that think that mistreatment of blacks ended when slavery ended.### Assistant: You still have no point that is of any value to the discussion. You seem to be accomplishing the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish IMO.### Human: My point is that, on Reddit, if you bring up how white people are victims of racism upvotes will flow. If, you bring up situations where black people, today, are judged by the color of their skin support is fleeting.
If you went to Advice animals and looked at memes that had racist themes, who would be the victim of that racism in most of those posts? |
### Human: University system (in the US) is an enormous scam that focuses on separating as much money from you as possible instead of quality education. CMV### Assistant: So while much of what you stated is true, a scam would imply that people didn't know these facts beforehand, which is not necessarily true. Much like buying a new or used car, you do research into the purchase as to its qualities and specifications, and asking previous owners what the experience was like. Going into university I had a good idea what I'm here for and where my money goes.
I take classes that are guaranteed by the university to say that if i got an A it meant that I probably beat out 85-90% of all the other students.
On top of that, my money goes in part towards the marketing of students to employers and it hosts job fairs to various recruiters, an environment not possible from learning at home. There are also other programs set up that only students can apply to such as exclusive paid internship listings and such.
I attend a research university so teaching ability, while nice, is in no way expected. Much like expecting 60mpg out of a Ferrari, and then complaining to the dealership why your Ferrari eats so much oil.
Final point of thought of mine is the actual debt itself. While I personally can't justify going to private school necessarily ($45,000), in-state fees are usually $15,000 so about 5 years later, $75,000 of debt. If you were any engineering or CS, that debt would be made back in about 5 years of frugal living, or less if living at home initially.
Just my two cents.
Edit: I've only paid for 2-3 books that were $50+ so far in my two years here, and those books I felt were actually good books to own after college. If you are resourceful, the university should have legal ways to lend out common books, and most if not all professors I've had that had "required" books based their exams on lectures so people didn't need them or posted full homework questions online to avoid books.### Human: But if you didn't go to college, you would be earning money 4 years earlier than those who did. This comes out to a total of 9 years more of debt-free living than people who went to college. If during this time, someone who didn't go to college continued to live at home and invest a portion of what they make working, they could eventually be earning far more money than those who went to college.
In addition, by joining the work force earlier than someone who goes to college, a person without a degree can begin gaining work experience much sooner, which tends to be more valuable than the degree. Sure, the job options for degree-less people are far more limited and may always be, but by advancing through the corporate ladder, a person can open new opportunities to better jobs.### Assistant: Here's a [blurb from Freakonomics](http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/08/who-gains-the-most-from-a-college-education/) that talks a bit about the income gap between the college educated and those who aren't.
Male college graduates earn about 10% more over the course of their lifetime. That doesn't necessarily mean that college is the right economic decision for everyone, but to those who have the choice and motivation (even those that don't and can only make it through as little as a year see significant lifetime benefits, but I'm having difficulty finding that study), college is a very good investment.### Human: Right, but you need to look past the statistics to understand what I'm trying to say. For the average person, college is a good investment. But not everyone is meant for college. [Some people attempt college and find it's not an environment where they can succeed.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_dropout_billionaires)
[People with an entrepreneurial mindset don't necessarily need to go to college to be successful.](http://elitedaily.com/news/business/100-top-entrepreneurs-succeeded-college-degree/)### Assistant: To be fair, your original comment seems to be 100% anti-college, and makes no mention of how it's right for some people. I don't think glassdirigible was ignoring any kind of point you had made. |
### Human: CMV: Dichotomizing "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs prevents meaningful and effective abuse prevention### Assistant: >I would not take or recommend that anyone take heroin or meth. In my experience these drugs are veritable life-ruiners that really do fuck people up.
You said it right there. That's the distinction between hard drugs and "other" drugs. Hard drugs are much more likely to destroy your life than say, alcohol (which still can, but it's easier to control and/or quit).
That being said, I don't think there's a clear dichotomy between hard and soft, more of a continuum, with some drugs being "harder" or "softer" than others.### Human: So is cocaine soft or hard? Its roughly as habit-forming as alcohol is, and its withdrawal is never lethal...unlike alcohol. Alcohol also has a veritable laundry list of negative health effects. What about nicotine? Its about as habit-forming as *morphine*.### Assistant: It's way easier to od on coke.### Human: Actually, the active/lethal dose ratio, which I consider a pretty good measure of OD potential, of cocaine is lower than alcohol. It is easier to OD on alcohol. Hell, the active/lethal dose ratio of alcohol is exceeded mainly by opiates.
EDIT: i -> I### Assistant: It's much easier to know exactly how much you are getting with alcohol than it is with coke.### Human: In large part due to alcohol's legality and regulation. Having the percentage of alcohol by volume right on the container is very handy. You just don't get that with coke.### Assistant: This weird dance of trying to figure out whether this drug or that drug is "hard" or "soft" is exactly why this is an awful way to prevent drug issues.### Human: Haha, you're changing my mind. I came on here to dispute, but as an alcoholic, I consider alcohol a hard drug for myself. It's much worse for me to take one beer than it is to do any other drug I've tried. I'm pro-drug experimentation, but I think you're right that this dichotomy adversely affects the way experimentation occurs. |
### Human: CMV: If a God exists that allows so much evil in the world, he isn't worthy of worship### Assistant: You're presuming it's possible to bring about a world where there's minimal evil and a similar or greater amount of good in the world. Many wouldn't presume that. Human free will means the free will to do bad things, like kill a ton of jews, kill jesus, lots of stuff. A world where god intervened heavily to protect us may well be a worse one.
In terms of worship, even if you don't accept this, people worship thunder, war, death, lots of things. The Thule society, later the Nazi party, worshiped Odin God of War. A god that's fairly hands off but provides support and help in smaller ways is worthy of support even if they don't fix everything, especially compared to a god of war.### Human: Yeah I guess a world without decisions to make isn't really a world worth living in at all. And with how flawed humanity is, this freedom to make decisions was/is bound to lead to evil. So the absence of evil wouldn't necessarily be better, because it almost necessarily means the absence of free will.### Assistant: Yep. So, have I changed your view? In that a world without decisions would suck to live in?### Human: I mean that wasn't my original thesis, I already knew that a decision-less world would suck. But you did connect the two### Assistant: Thanks, so may I have a delta? Many are happy to worship a god that allows us freedom, even if that means some pain. |
### Human: I believe that health insurance companies must be allowed to discriminate based on gender. CMV### Assistant: For starters, I agree with you. Completely. But for the sake of argument, would you be okay with health insurance companies refusing to insure/charging much higher rates to any of the following groups?
1. The elderly
2. Native Americans living on reservations
3. Children born with congenital defects
4. The poor
5. Cancer survivors
If you think denying coverage to cancer survivors is unfair, why? Or why not? All of the above are easily identifiable groups who have much higher than average risks of medical problems. (And all of them have had to deal with difficulties getting insurance in the past). What I find really interesting is that people will say yes to some and no to others, though if you accept your thesis it really should apply to all of them.
In a broader sense, there will always be people who have greater or lesser risk for medical problems and who incur greater medical costs. Some would argue the entire point of medical insurance is to distribute the risks and costs of the unfortunate few across the entire subscriber base.### Human: I think OP would say yes since really their position isn't about sex, but actually providing insurance i.e. measuring risk and then creating a policy based on that or accepting someone based on their risk.
Why shouldn't insurance companies discriminate against cancer survivors if the data shows that they are more likely to get cancer and therefor it isn't economical to give them a policy. Once insurance stops discriminating they turn into a charity and not insurance. Nothing is wrong with charity by the way, it just makes a poor business model.
Edit- You can't get insurance for a car after you crash it and have them fix it. You can't get flood insurance for your house after it's been flooded and have the insurance company pay for it. You can't get insurance on a plane ticket after you've missed the flight. There's no reason why a health insurance company should act differently than other insurance companies. Once again insurance is about measuring risk.### Assistant: > Why shouldn't insurance companies discriminate against cancer survivors if the data shows that they are more likely to get cancer and therefor it isn't economical to give them a policy. Once insurance stops discriminating they turn into a charity and not insurance. Nothing is wrong with charity by the way, it just makes a poor business model.
This is exactly why health care should not be a for profit industry.### Human: >This is exactly why health care should not be a for profit industry.
Pretty weak argument, since you had no justification for it. We need profits to better allocate resources.### Assistant: > We need profits to better allocate resources.
Better by which definition? If you're trying to allocate resources based on what is economically most efficient, then you've lost sight of the goal. Efficient economies are not an end goal, they are a tool - a means to an end. Getting people health care is the goal. If getting health care to people who need it means making the market less efficient then that's a price I think we should pay.### Human: >If getting health care to people who need it means making the market less efficient then that's a price I think we should pay.
Your argument is to pay more to get less? I'll pass.### Assistant: > Your argument is to pay more to get less? I'll pass.
Or you could take a holistic approach and factor in that Canada, Australia and the UK all pay less per capita for health care and insurance then the USA and they have guaranteed access to care as well as for profit health insurance in Australia and the UK, and for profit heath providers in all three locations.
As it stands the USA model is to pay more to get less on the whole, when compared with equivalent first world countries.### Human: Canada doesn't have for profit insurance. Pretty sure that is illegal. Unless they changed the law.
>As it stands the USA model is to pay more to get less on the whole, when compared with equivalent first world countries.
It's amazing that rich politicians from Canada come to America for operations or that the Saudi King came to America for work on his heart. America use to be the innovator and best in medicine in world. I don't know if that trend will continue or not.### Assistant: If you have a million dollars lying around, sure, the US will take care of you.
If you don't have a million dollars around, every other first-world country has better healthcare.### Human: Yeah we have the best healthcare, or at least we did. Innovation has to come from somewhere and it has had a lot come from America. Those technologies and techniques then make their way down to the less affluent.### Assistant: Or, you know, don't, if it's not economical to provide coverage to them.### Human: Which it's not, so it doesn't. People are really still using the 'trickle down' argument today? |
### Human: CMV: I believe the Collegeboard is a scam### Assistant: If Choate and Municipal High both offer dual credit courses, MIT isn't about to give college credit for both of those. It knows that Choate has a good dual credit course, so it might accept Choate's course. But Municipal High's "dual credit" course might not be at that level. Right now, MIT can say that an AP course at Municipal High with a score of 5 counts for college credit. But without the AP test, what tells MIT that Municipal High's "dual credit" course is at a college level?
Regarding the SAT, the main issue is that having to take twenty tests to get into twenty schools would be a serious cost (in $ and time) for the applicants. This wouldn't matter too much for rich kids, but it would be a severe handicap for poorer students.### Human: except MIT doesn't accept AP exams for credit at all. (I think a 5 on CalcBC is the only one they take) The school however, does offer the option to place out of a class by instead taking in Final from a class or a test of equal difficulty and most student do in fact place out this way. This tests whether you learned the material to the level they need you to have instead of just learned how to take AP exams effectively.### Assistant: Yes they do.
http://web.mit.edu/FIRSTYEAR/prospective/ap/index.html
"MIT grants credit for a score of 5 on some College Board Advanced Placement (AP) exams (or 4 on the Calculus BC exam). It does not grant credit for secondary school courses teaching AP curricula, or partial credit for lower scores. If you take an AP exam more than once, only your higher score will be counted. "### Human: Well the point I'm trying to make is that there is an option to prove that you have learned the material to the required level without AP scores. Most colleges will offer placement tests for even classes without an AP course.### Assistant: If you take an AP class and get a good score, you
1. *know* that you can pass out of college classes, instead of just having to hope you learned the material well enough, and waiting for school to start to take a test to determine how many years you need to spend.
2. *prove* to the college that you did well in a class of specified difficulty, instead of that college having no idea whether your class was hard or not.
The first benefit is really nice, because you don't have to spend the start of college worrying about a new test. The second is unimportant for people who go to great well-known high schools, but is huge for students at mediocre schools.### Human: Because the test is curved, you don't necessarily prove that you did well. All you prove is that you did *better* than a substantial portion of the population. MIT engineering may not care about that, so they offer their own test. |
### Human: CMV: I believe the practice of intellectual property rights is a net loss for society and should be ended.### Assistant: > The central argument around copyright seems to be about whether or not the existence of it creates more or less incentive for innovation... To take a currently great design and add what you think it always needed.
With respect to *patents*, there's a second half of the argument for patents that is being ignored here: to claim patent protection, *you have to disclose the innovation in public*. By providing an incentive for innovators to disclose the innovations in public (temporary monopoly), this eventually allows future innovators to build upon the work of previous generations. Otherwise, all innovations would actually be kept as *trade secrets*, which slows progress because it forces innovation behind closed doors, potentially indefinitely; are less often traded or shared and thus less often built upon because of the risk of disclosure; wastes resources, because different companies try to recreate what each other innovated; and increases risk and volatility because a company take a huge hit at any time due to an unforeseen disclosure and no guarantee of protections. But to reiterate, half the point of patents is to incentivize public disclosure of innovations.
> I think the 'person A's of the world will make their way to high-paying jobs in the field that they search after
How can the industry itself support high-paying jobs if profits across the industry are being cut because there's no guarantee someone else won't just copy and resell content?
> Yet if somebody wants to take the music I've written, change a note or a lyric, and then profit from their edited version, I have no issue with it.
That may be fine with you but is not necessarily great for others. There are many products that are easily copyable (music, art, film, writing), that without copyright protections, can severely impact the creator's ability to make a living *because other people are sharing in those profits*. This kinda also applies to any technological innovation where the R&D cost far exceeds the production cost, without an incentive to invest in R&D, there isn't any innovation. If you don't expect to recuperate your R&D costs, because of the risk of someone else outcompeting you at production, you aren't going to invest in R&D. It's more lucrative to trade in what already exists than to create new things. Also, you are perfectly free to forgo your own copyright, though you have to explicitly do this, since unlike patents, copyrights are automatically conferred. (You would choose a license, of which there are many, that requires all derivative workers to share the same permissive license).### Human: I didn't know that patents had to be publicly disclosed to be protected. I suppose that's a good thing in that it avoids making creations trade secrets so much. Though there are certain things (chemical compounds) that I imagine can be kept pretty secretively, human involvement in creating and installing very tangible machinery and the like seems like it would be so 'observable' that before long, many manufacturing and tangible design features would still be public knowledge (not like general public knowledge, but I mean it would be out there in textbooks and on Wikipedia, etc.). So I wonder how much of a slog we'd create by losing the incentive of public disclosure of patents, because I think a great lot of innovative technology would still be well-documented and open. Not as much of it I imagine would be publicly disclosed I admit, but as to whether that would be enough to warrant keeping the patent system, I'm a bit up in the air about and still leaning towards patents and intellectual copyright being more harmful than good. Because while patents might keep a bit of things from being trade secrets, they also seem to me to keep many designs from being improved upon by anybody who has the means to improve them (until they run out many years after they are granted).
>How can the industry itself support high-paying jobs if profits across the industry are being cut because there's no guarantee someone else won't just copy and resell content?
I really believe I lack a lot of economic and market sense, so I'm not trying to play dumb or anything, but a lot of my own posts are just my own deliberation without any concrete opinions of my own. I don't think high-paying jobs would just be unable to be supported (especially in industries with harder-to-copy objects), but that might also just be because I don't see the exact cause-and-effect that would cause that to happen. The company that sells product A might not be able to support high-paying jobs when company B comes in and sells product A for a lower price, but the cost of goods also goes down in this case and perhaps company B is now able to support twice as many high-paying jobs.
>That may be fine with you but is not necessarily great for others. There are many products that are easily copyable (music, art, film, writing), that without copyright protections, can severely impact the creator's ability to make a living because other people are sharing in those profits.
This might be completely inane (and I don't mean to say that sarcastically or facetiously), but should music, games, movies, and so on be looking forward to relying on donations? Ultimately, in a world where music, games, and movies are largely artificial scarcity, shouldn't the ideal situation be that the industry is drawn towards a commission-style type of sustainability? At least in these fields, are the jobs going to be from creators asking for people to promote their livelihood? I think you see a lot of streamers do this - that can live off of donations, and a substantial amount of indie developers seem to be making a living through Kickstarter as well. I suppose that's not high-paying, but for the fields of entertainment and the arts, it seems like it might be the only practical route. Maybe that's completely implausible though and doesn't stand up in any economical sense...?
Also, does R&D stand for research and development?### Assistant: > not like general public knowledge, but I mean it would be out there in textbooks and on Wikipedia, etc.
Who exactly would be writing these textbooks? Without a copyright, textbook writers wouldn't be able to stop people from just taking their work.
As for contributing to a wiki or some such, anyone with enough knowledge to make a meaningful contribution would, presumably, be under an NDA and/or it would be detrimental to their own livelihood to disclose their employer's secrets. In a world without IP protection, secrets are way more important than in our current world.
A quick extra thought I had on this: wikipedia is reliant on its sources, which are typically things like textbooks. I'm not sure if wikipedia would be what it is today without those sources (which themselves rely on IP law).
> The company that sells product A might not be able to support high-paying jobs when company B comes in and sells product A for a lower price, but the cost of goods also goes down in this case and perhaps company B is now able to support twice as many high-paying jobs.
If you look at the logic of what you're saying, I think you'll see that company B can't realistically provide more high-paying jobs than company A.
> the cost of goods also goes down in this case
Company A has to price the drug to include the research and development costs while company B can charge less because it doesn't have that associated cost. The price to consumers decreases, but the decreased price will not increase the demand by a significant portion. With a decreased price point and a relatively fixed demand, you can't generate higher revenue.
> Multimedia moving to crowdfunding
I can only speak intelligently about games. Games cost a lot of money to make. Smaller games require less money and larger ones more (as you might expect). So in a world where all games are crowdfunded there would not likely be any games on the scale of Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty or (insert any big name game here). Games would be relegated to the small and indie with very few exceptions. Small/indie games are great, but I for one would really lament the passing of major games.
For a bit of scale:
* Call of Duty: Modern warfare 2 cost 276 million USD
* Grand Theft Auto 5 cost 269 million USD
* Final Fantasy 7 cost 214 million USD
Meanwhile the highest funding for crowdfunded games are
* Star Citizen at 121 million
* Prison Architect at 19 million
* Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues at 10 million
* Shenmue 3 at 6.3 million
Star Citizen is a huge outlier in terms of funding for some weird reasons. For one, they offer several [versions of the game](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages?product_id=&sort=price_desc&search=&itemType=skus&storefront=pledge&type=game-packages&) ranging in price from $USD 45 up to $USD 15,000, and in addition the 121 million dollar number is inflate by the fact that they include investments in that number (in a world without IP, investing in a game in the hopes of financial compensation wouldn't be viable). However Star Citizen does show that with a crowdfunding-reliant system, we could hope for 1 major game every 3-4 years (assuming the current trend repeats.. and assuming Star Citizen actually gets finished).
A last thought: I think IP law is broken and needs an overhaul, but getting rid of it entirely is even worse than what we have in place currently.### Human: > Who exactly would be writing these textbooks? Without a copyright, textbook writers wouldn't be able to stop people from just taking their work.
There are plenty of people and companies who provide very well researched work and information for free. In a world without copyright, this type of thing becomes more common in efforts to sell non-copyable extras. It also opens up and removes the lock on prices that textbooks have right now. The only reason why textbook makers can charge so much for textbooks is because of copyright. If the information/examples/practice problems become widely available due to free sources that schools choose, students would save hundreds of dollars every semester each.
> As for contributing to a wiki or some such, anyone with enough knowledge to make a meaningful contribution would, presumably, be under an NDA and/or it would be detrimental to their own livelihood to disclose their employer's secrets.
If this were true, why does open source code exist? Why do so many companies create so much free to use content even in our world with copyright? This assumption is a faulty one. There's no reason to believe this would be the case. In a world without copyright and patents, the general mode of business would be extremely different than it is now. Remember that tons of trade, knowledge trading, and contributions were made to the world long before the existence of IP protections.
> Company A has to price the drug to include the research and development costs while company B can charge less because it doesn't have that associated cost.
Company B still needs to take time to reverse engineer the drug, and spend money and time to test it with regulations. The result of this is that instead of the pharmaceutical business model being one that surrounds patenting drugs and selling the same one for over a decade, tweaking it for a new use case, rinse and repeat, the business model would revolve around being first to market with a high price to recoup if the demand exists, then dropping it down once competition arrives.
The result of a world without copyright and patents is *more innovation* because the only way to keep making money is to keep being first to market and profiting until someone can reverse engineer it and compete.
This also increases competition and reduces prices for consumers.
> Games would be relegated to the small and indie with very few exceptions. Small/indie games are great, but I for one would really lament the passing of major games.
Games would still get developed with big budgets, they would just monetize in different ways. If you create a big budget game, the only thing that copyright is preventing right now is someone just taking your code and assets and simply reselling it as their own by copying the disk and producing their own. Copyright doesn't cover game mechanics. If we eliminate copyright, we'd simply see more copy protections/obfuscation. We're already seeing a huge number of games being primarily multiplayer, which means that attempting to copy the game means you need your own servers and proprietary server software etc. So a lack of copyright wouldn't actually result in a lack of big budget games.### Assistant: > In a world without copyright, [very well researched work and information for free] becomes more common in efforts to sell non-copyable extras.
I agree it would be more common, but I disagree that it would rise to a point that matches or exceeds what's currently available.
> If this were true, why does open source code exist?
You're taking my quote out of context. I was addressing OP's point about a company's manufacturing and tangible design features.
> If we eliminate copyright, we'd simply see more copy protections/obfuscation.
I don't... whaaat? Copyright is the legal form of copy protection.. You can't copy protect something without a legal right to do so. No copyright, no copy protection.### Human: > Copyright is the legal form of copy protection.. You can't copy protect something without a legal right to do so. No copyright, no copy protection.
Ofcourse you can. Copyright protection for programs is new, there are plenty of way to make copy protection work for programs (dongles for example). Just because you don't have copyright protection doesn't mean people aren't going to do their damndest to prevent copying.### Assistant: > Ofcourse you can
I'm going to have to ask for a source on that. Everything I've seen on copy protection involves copyright law. So without copyright law, what legal right do they have to copy protect?### Human: > Everything I've seen on copy protection involves copyright law. So without copyright law, what legal right do they have to copy protect?
No copyright law doesn't mean you have the right to copy. It just means the law won't stop you from copying. Creators can do whatever they like to prevent you from copying.
Consider for example the discs used by the Nintendo Wii, those discs spiral in the opposite way to normal discs. It means that those discs cannot be read or copied by any normal DVD reader, which makes it a form of copy protection.
Or games that required you you type in codes from manual. This obviously worked better before internet.
Or software that requires a particular dongle to work. You can copy the software, you just can't run it without the dongle. Even if you were allowed to copy the dongle, that doesn't mean you can.
Do you remember Macrovision?
Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection
Copyright law means you can use the law to stop people copying, nothing more.### Assistant: > Consider for example the discs used by the Nintendo Wii, those discs spiral in the opposite way to normal discs. It means that those discs cannot be read or copied by any normal DVD reader, which makes it a form of copy protection.
I'm not sure where you found your information, but I was unable to corroborate this claim.
The copy protection came from Nintendo not using DVD forum's software, thus being unable to read conventional DVDs. Via homebrew (hacking the console with custom software) you can use a Wii to play DVD movies. Normal DVD readers have no issues reading Nintendo discs and you can copy a Nintendo disc to a DVD with many conventional disc copy utilities. |
### Human: If I have mentally challenged children, I will abort or give them up for adoption. CMV.### Assistant: I would hazard that giving them up for adoption is inherently much more selfish than abortion.### Human: Care to elaborate on that?### Assistant: Sure!
It seems to void the argument that "the child shouldn't have to live like that", swapping it for "I don't want to deal with a child living like that.
On my phone so its hard to expand, but does that make sense?### Human: If I can be blunt, it's not about not *wanting* to deal with that, it's about being honest about my *capacity* to deal with it. I have always tried to be as utterly honest *with* myself *about* myself as possible, and have spent a lot of time trying to understand who I am, why I am, and what I am capable of. That means admitting what I'm *not* capable of.
I feel like a lot of the folks I'm talking to here don't know a whole lot about adoption, on the whole. You don't just drop your unwanted kids off at the orphanage anymore, guys. Adoption is a long, complicated process, and you can be as involved or as not involved as you want in the process. While I know that people aren't lining up a dime-a-dozen to adopt retarded children, they *do* exist, and if you're willing to put in the effort to find a good home for a child you don't feel capable of caring for, I don't feel like that's abandoning a responsibility so much as taking responsibility for what you can and cannot do effectively.### Assistant: Do you honestly consider the chances of such a child having a happy life to be very good?
I'd wager there are a whoooole lot more unwanted babies with disabilities than their are loving families waiting to take one (and all the issues that brings with it) into their lives.
The odds are not very good, and while its true that you may not be able to provide for the child, I don't know that anyone else will either.
/could be wrong, maybe there are some programs or something I don't know about### Human: Answered this lots of times if you're willing to roll through the comments.### Assistant: I just did, and no you didn't.
Edit: Maybe you did, but not in a realistic mind set. |
### Human: CMV: Educating a child is the duty of the whole community, not just the parent### Assistant: Things that are everyone's responsibility, in practice, tend to become no one's responsibility. Even if you're correct ethically, practically communal ownership is a recipe for disaster and shitty child rearing because everyone will shirk.### Human: You're right.
I still believe that the parent should be have primary right and responsibility over their child.
What I am trying to argue is that it isn't exclusively the parents### Assistant: if parents are the primary, then they do have to have some right to say "they're my child". they might be wrong in doing so, but the statement itself is not illegitimate unless you claim the community's right exceeds the parents'.### Human: >the statement itself is not illegitimate unless you claim the community's right exceeds the parents'.
It's clear in this situation that we should consider what's best for the child's before what's best for the parent or the community.
What your comment made me consider is; Is the mistrust of the parent a child might acquire because someone else told them their parents are wrong, harmful for the child?
Since this is a problem I can't resolve, I think it's fair to say that your comment changed my view
∆### Assistant: The problem is there is no your way to decide 100% of the time in the best interest of the child, and not be biased |
### Human: CMV: There is no justification for a no-knock raid.### Assistant: There's an important distinction to be made. Examples of mistakes or abuses in no-knock warrants aren't *necessarily* evidence that the *concept* of the no-knock warrant is wrong or invalid.
Here is one situation where I think it would be absolutely acceptable: Police have specific evidence that suggests that a suspect is armed and highly likely to resist an attempt to serve a warrant with deadly force. For the cops to announce their presence in this case would simply allow the suspect more time to get and load weapons and prepare a deadlier response.
> I don't see a valid reason why they can't make their arrests in another way.
I would argue that there should be pretty high standards for determining if a suspect needs this kind of treatment and I agree that the use of no-knock warrants for anything less than this type of scenario is probably not ethically supportable. But the blanket statement that they should never be allowed isn't supportable in my opinion.### Human: > Police have specific evidence that suggests that a suspect is armed and highly likely to resist an attempt to serve a warrant with deadly force
I don't understand how you see that is reason *for* a no-knock raid. I see that as a reason *NOT* to have a no-knock raid. Escalating the situation and whatnot. Besides, it doesn't take any time to grab a loaded rifle sitting next to you. Again, you're only escalating the situation. This is how cops, civilians, dogs and babies get killed.### Assistant: Because violent bad guys aren't usually sitting in their living room holding a loaded weapon pointed at the door. They are usually living in their house doing whatever it is people do in houses. Eating, sleeping, sitting on the toilet, watching TV, in the shower - whatever. Even if they have a loaded weapon next to them, it's still highly unlikely that they can figure out what's happening fast enough to gain a tactical advantage in the confrontation. Giving them an opportunity to stop whatever they are doing, go grab a weapon, and set up in a favorable place and kill whomever comes through the door first is not a tactically sound idea. You're basically just sacrificing the lives of the cops at the door trying to serve the warrant.
Instead, you come in quickly with a disorienting flash-bang. Before the person inside knows what's happening, there is a team of 4 armed men standing there with rifles pointed at him. This is *exponentially* safer for the cops than standing on the doorstep announcing to the guy inside that you'd like to come in and arrest him.
So it's a tradeoff. If you allow all warrants to be no-knock - it's very safe for the police but creates unacceptable dangers for everybody else. If you don't allow any warrants to be no-knock then there are *some* situations where it's unacceptably dangerous for the police to go out and serve the warrant to begin with.
Again - I'm not claiming that they are categorically good. I'm not claiming that there aren't major problems with the way they are executed from time to time. I'm simply saying that there is a place for them in the law enforcement toolkit and should be used very judiciously.### Human: > Because violent bad guys aren't usually sitting in their living room holding a loaded weapon pointed at the door.
First of all, you're assuming we're talking about violent bad guys, which we may or may not be. Secondly, plenty of people have guns within arms reach at any given time at home, myself included. It's entirely plausible, likely even, that knocking down the door results in a firefight. It has happened tons of times and is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to put all of those lives in danger. You're playing with fire.
>Instead, you come in quickly with a disorienting flash-bang. Before the person inside knows what's happening, there is a team of 4 armed men standing there with rifles pointed at him.
Unless he's not standing next to the door...
>So it's a tradeoff. If you allow all warrants to be no-knock - it's very safe for the police
I disagree completely. Police officers have died in the line of duty this way in the past and will again in the future. It offers no safety advantage over any other type of confrontation. It is the single worst way to engage a criminal.
I appreciate your response.### Assistant: > First of all, you're assuming we're talking about violent bad guys,
Yes. I'm saying that we *should* be very careful about this and only use it when we have a high degree of certianty that the guy inside is in fact and armed and violent criminal who is highly likely to use deadly force as soon as he's aware of the police presence.
> Secondly, plenty of people have guns within arms reach at any given time at home, myself included.
Have you ever seen a house-clearing team in action? Do you really think that you could go from "I'm sitting on my couch watching TV with a pistol on the end-table next to me" to "I've secured my weapon, taken a defensive posture, and am prepared to take aimed shots" within 2 seconds of an unexpected flash-bang going off? Let's assume you can because you're that good. But here's what the typical person does:
1. window breaks, person looks over and says "Whaaa-?"
2. Flashbang goes off. person jumps back instinctively. Now wrong-footed, blinded, and with ears ringing he reaches out and feels for his pistol on the table next to him.
3. He finds it, clutches it toward himself and takes about 2 seconds (still blinded and ears still ringing) to get the weapon held in his hand properly with his finger in the trigger-well.
4. He looks up and can begin to see shapes moving around ans his vision starts to clear. He may even take a couple of potshots, but really can't see much beyond light and shadow so the shots do not make contact with any targets.
5. It really doesn't matter by this point. The entry team has already got him on the ground with a knee to the back of his neck while another person zipties his hands behind his back. In fact - there's a very good chance that they got to him before he found the weapon to begin with. The follow-on team has already moved through this cleared entry room and is halfway through clearing the remainder of the house.
Yeah - it's risky. He could be waiting. Maybe he's in a back room and has 45 seconds to prepare (not a lot of time still, but enough to probably get weapons ready if they are on-hand). But the point is, it's not as risky as standing at the door and announcing yourself. (Which is to say, in *some* situations with extremely high risk suspects. Not in general, only for these high-risk suspects.)
> Police officers have died in the line of duty this way in the past and will again in the future.
Yes. Like I said - it's risky. But you have to compare the risk against the risk of approaching these very dangerous suspects via alternate means. A no-knock warrant should only be used *precisely* when it's safer than the alternative.### Human: OR the police respond to being shot at by shooting at the disorientated and easy target, thus serving him the death penalty for a crime he has yet to be tried for.### Assistant: Sure. That could happen. Probably would if the suspect actually does fire.
Like I've been saying elsewhere in this thread - I wouldn't try to claim that no-knock warrants are good in all situations. I'd venture to say they are the wrong call in *most* situations. But OP's claim is that there is *never*, under any circumstances to do it. I disagree. I said this in another thread here:
> These would be situations characterized by known violent people why are expected to respond to any police presence with deadly force where an actual nuanced look at the details of the individual situation determine that no-knock is the best way to minimize risk to officers, innocent bystanders, and the suspect(s).### Human: Point being, there has to be another way. The situation you described almost positively ends the life of the homeowner, and whether he is a criminal or not, putting someone in a situation where you're blindsiding them and forcing them to defend themselves is pretty close to execution in my book.### Assistant: > The situation you described almost positively ends the life of the homeowner
I disagree. If the homeowner shoots at the cops then yes - he's almost certainly going to end up dead. But the assumption that no-knock warrants usually end with the death of the occupants is unsupported. Do you have data which indicates that there's a higher incidence of the suspect's death during no-knock warrant executions than otherwise? Or are you just going off of the news stories?
> Point being, there has to be another way
I'm not convinced. I described a [hypothetical here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/27pf89/cmv_there_is_no_justification_for_a_noknock_raid/ci39zbr) where I think it would be perfectly justified. What alternatives would you suggest?### Human: > If the homeowner shoots at the cops then yes - he's almost certainly going to end up dead.
Shooting at home invaders is a perfectly reasonable response. We should never execute people for taking reasonable actions. |
### Human: CMV: Despite the stigma, Prenuptial agreements are not only smart but incredibly romantic### Assistant: I agree pre-nups are very smart, and all the reasons you listed fall under the smart category and not romantic.
Getting finances out in the open is smart.
Removing ulterior motives is smart.
Having the division of assets already planned out is smart.
Romance involves a lot of irrational thinking, like playing a boom box outside her window in the freezing cold, or enjoying the smell of his farts.
The rational, pragmatism of a legal contract is miles away from the emotion and quirky behaviors brought on by romance.### Human: That said, a prenup clears the table for pure romance to thrive. Many of the insecurities that undermine a relationship are addressed.
Acting against one's own self-interest out of emotion is not a case against the stigma of a prenup.### Assistant: So you agree with me? The pre-nup is not inherently romantic, but it creates a situation for romance to thrive.### Human: It assures that the relationship exists so long as both parties mutually want it to. I.e. so long as there is romance.
Lot's of people stay in the wrong relationship because they feel trapped, whereas if they had worked out their concerns in a prenup, they wouldn't have to. So, while the process of drafting up a prenup is not inherently romantic, the result is. Anyone who is marrying to get their partners inheritance (or similar financial/political reasons) would refuse a prenup.### Assistant: > while the process of drafting up a prenup is not inherently romantic
Where's my delta?### Human: > it creates a situation for romance to thrive
You haven't challenged my assertion, you've leveraged semantics on the wording of my title. I mean, if you *want* to win that way... seems cheesy. |
### Human: CMV on abortion: I believe that the pro-choice argument trivialises a matter of life or death by turning the issue into an argument about convenience.### Assistant: >the pro-choice argument trivialises a matter of life or death by turning the issue into an argument about convenience.
The very phrase pro-choice is problematic to some people because it can possibly give the idea of a woman making the decision "baby or no baby" the same way she would make the decision "blue shoes or red shoes" or "go out drinking today or stay in and watch a movie". The phrase pro-choice trivializes a deeply complicated and personal situation that to the would-be parent(s) is sometimes not a choice at all.
Abortion is not black and white, it's a spectrum. There are countless different situations.
When I had my abortion I wanted to be a mother, I wanted to be able to have that baby and for everything to be okay. I even began to feel attached to it as my dr's appointment neared. I cried every day.
But I was homeless and unemployed, I was trying to pull myself out of a hole of mental illness and substance abuse that I had been in for years. Things were looking up, sort of. I had begun living with my boyfriend, who lived with his parents. However, he too had some substance abuse issues and we had just begun our relationship.
We fucked up. And I had previously thought that applying for government assistance and asking for help from family wouldn't be so bad but when faced with that situation I knew that wasn't right for me. If I could just have one more year I knew I would be in a significantly better place. But not if I had to care for a child. And adoption was not an option because no child of mine will be cared for by someone else. I'm either all in or all out. I wanted to be all in. But the resources just weren't there.
This wasn't a choice for me. The outcome was clear as soon as I saw the positive sign on the test. It's been almost exactly a year since the abortion and I can say that I did the right thing, logically, rationally, I made the best choice for myself, my health, my relationship, and my future family. If I got pregnant right now that child would be in a significantly better place than the one from the previous pregnancy.
>I think we forget that this argument doesn't adequately recognise that your needs for personal freedom do in fact infringe upon the physical safety of another, we forget this because the other party currently lacks a voice to defend themselves. This is where i think we start to go from a matter of life or death to a matter of convenience, are the next 9 months of your life worth more than the entire lifespan of another person? I don't think this is a matter of individual morality, or a matter of convenience. This is a matter of life or death.
If I wasn't able to have the medical procedure that I did we'd be on government assistance which is notoriously difficult to get out of. This is literally the difference between growing up in the ghetto and growing up in an owned home and have parents with well paying jobs who don't have to depend on anyone else. I grew up in a family that struggled with money and a mother that struggled with mental health issues. I WILL NOT let my children have the same or worse upbringing. I loved my hypothetical child and I still do, and I prevented it from continuing to develop because of that love and that desire to protect it from hardship. So is stopping the life of my hypothetical first child worth all of this? Is expelling that 5 week old clump of tissue worth giving all other pregnancies a better chance of survival and development? Fuck yes. It didn't feel, it didn't hurt, it barely existed. And now I can be a better parent to the children I DO WANT TO HAVE on MY own terms when I am ready.
So this is a matter of life and death. It would be putting a death sentence on a better future for myself, my SO, my future children, all for this one possible-child that I created at the wrong time. I believe it is moral to put the well-being of my entire FAMILY and future generations over that of a clump of tissue that has come into existence less than 2 months ago.
.
>Whenever a man and a woman enter into consensual sex, they are aware of the consequences of not using adequate protection (The pill + Condom together for total safety). They are accepting the terms and conditions with mother nature so to speak
That's a wonderfully idealistic way to look at sex and reproduction but it just isn't reality. And I don't think it should be expected of people to be 100% responsible all the time. People fuck up, they have a lapse in judgment and don't pull out. Not everyone sees mother nature as something you just have to put your head down and respect. Some people see mother nature as something we can work with, or manipulate.
>as a modern society we generally try to afford individuals as many freedoms as possible provided they aren't infringing upon the rights of another human
The fetus does not have anywhere near the level of consciousness that the mother has, so it has nowhere near the level of rights that we afford to sentient beings that it's mother has. Her rights to make decisions trump the fetus' because it cannot make decisions, or think at all, or feel emotions. If it feels pain (and I am saying at VERY early stage in pregnancy where most abortions take place- before 9 weeks) then it feels pain the way an insect does, it's neurological system may have the capacity to send those messages but there is no place in the fetus where it says "OUCH".
Women are the gatekeepers of life and always have been. Our physiology enables us to decide if we'd like to bring a new being into the world. With great power comes great responsibility, right? But we are human, and humans make mistakes. And as sentient beings we have a choice as to how we handle those situations. I can terminate one pregnancy, one tiny clump of human tissue. I can create some more too, and remove them from my body if I want. What makes one more special than the others? I do. I decide which one I have the resources to support.
.
**TL;DR: There is no argument about convenience. It is an argument about survival. For lots of people abortion is not a choice, they simply don't have the resources to carry through with that pregnancy. A pregnancy is a possible-human being, it does not have a significant level of consciousness. The carrier of that pregnancy DOES have a significant level of consciousness and DOES have all the rights to autonomy that a sentient being should have, including control over their reproduction. How a pregnancy came to be has nothing to do with whether or not a pregnancy needs to be continued. And one more time, just to be clear: Very often, abortion is NOT a CHOICE. It is sometimes the ONLY rational course of action.**
[edited to more directly respond to OP's points. Sorry I did it all dumb at first. My bad :p]
[edited again because my SO knows my reddit name and I felt awkward having put a couple of personal details there that he would see]### Human: >And adoption was not an option because no child of mine will be cared >or by someone else. I'm either all in or all out.
So, basically, it's "If I can't take care of my baby and give it a good life and home, then no one can!"
I understand people tend to make assumptions about the future, it's how we calculate problems so we can make logical and adequate decisions. However, when it comes to *children*, you shouldn't make assumptions about what their future will be like. It's better to take a chance then to just straight up "mercy" kill the kid or whatever.### Assistant: I understand how you see it. The potential is what you see and you don't separate that from the developing pregnancy. However, it's not a child, it's a fetus with no level of consciousness and it's a part of the mothers body so I believe that there's nothing wrong with ending the pregnancy at that point. That's the way I see it.
So do you oppose the legality of abortion?### Human: I don't oppose the legality of abortion, I oppose the morality. Just like I believe it's morally wrong to cheat on someone, but it shouldn't be against the law.### Assistant: Woah now, you're late to the party.
Well that's the thing, morals are subjective and what counts as wrong for one person isn't wrong for another. It's like that with cheating too, what constitutes as cheating for one couple is perfectly fine for another. I don't think abortion is morally wrong but I understand the view of those who do. I just think it is absolutely a medical procedure to be decided upon by a doctor and patient and that even though some people may not want abortions to happen, making it illegal gives the government a dangerous level of control over a persons body and there are other better ways to lower the amount of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. |
### Human: CMV: The United States is an empire in decline and is on a downward trajectory### Assistant: First, you haven't explained why any of the problems you've listed actually lead to this supposed decline. Your view is essentially a set of loosely-related declarations without a unifying rationale. Your stated view is a measurement of American power, but all of your other points don't directly relate to how powerful the US is compared to other countries. In other words, you haven't really made a cogent argument.
When you make a comparison to Rome, it can be helpful to take a closer look at its history. Their political history *before* the fall of the republic and rise of the empire was incredibly tumultuous. Civil wars, epic political machinations, economic stratification that was intentionally correlated with political power (patricians/plebeians).
* Worried about prisons? Rome had to institute social programs because it replaced its workforce with *slaves*.
* Inequality? Rome had separate classes determined by birth, as well as high cost of entry into the political elite. Every person born in America could theoretically become president or start a successful business. Rome had large populations of people who didn't even have that much *theoretical* power.
* Money in politics? That's how the Romans were doing it well before they reached the zenith of their power.
* Broken politics? This isn't even the worst point in *American* history. We had a Whiskey Rebellion. We had a Civil War. We had a Great Depression. We had a Vietnam. The Romans had numerous civil wars, and there were points during the 2nd Punic War when it looked as if Rome was about to be conquered by Hannibal. To argue that this point in American political history signals some imminent downfall is to ignore not just American history, but the history of most great powers. Most didn't reach the heights of power enjoying anything resembling unity and without continually facing significant existential threats.
I'm not saying that the issues you bring up aren't worthy of concern, but framing it as the coming downfall of American power is just playing Chicken Little. Rome and Britain had strong internal political divisions, corruption and strong rivals that threatened them; they succeeded anyway. I see no reason the US couldn't (continue to) do the same.### Human: On broken politics, most of the examples you provided were before the US was truly a global super power. So really how useful are those examples of past American problems if they predate US hegemony? They are not proof that the US can withstand such problems while staying a global hegemon, only that countries do not totally collapse into nonexistence when they have those problems.### Assistant: How does that power invalidate the examples? I mean, it's a fair point to say that the US hasn't faced the exact circumstance it does now in the past, but how useful is that statement?
I can only point to the fact that the US has endured much deeper divisions in the past without its power diminishing while pointing out that other empires weathered even greater conflicts in somewhat analogous positions and ended up even stronger.### Human: > How does that power invalidate the examples?
My point is, you provided examples that do not fit. What happened in the pre-hegemonic United States has no immediate relevance. Can the US exist with these flaws? Yes, you've proven that. Can the US sustain its status as a global hegemon with these flaws? That you've completely left unanswered.
> I can only point to the fact that the US has endured much deeper divisions in the past without its power diminishing
This almost sounds like you're assuming the US has always been a empire that could conceivably go into decline. This is simply not the case. No one would have described the US as an "empire" of the world at the time of the Civil War (well, maybe they would, but I'd chalk that up to racist assumptions of manifest destiny).
> pointing out that other empires weathered even greater conflicts
Well, you pointed out *other* problems were sustainable, but even then only sort of. Money in politics, for example, is not the same thing as a broken system. The Roman empire solved the problem of a broken legislative body by creating a dictatorship. I think pretty much all Americans would consider the institution of an Emperor to be the fall of American values, a sort of admission of failure in our ideas. These kinds of issues are very problematic for anyone who reads your answer and comes away thinking everything will definitely go on basically within the status quo, since your examples *did not* maintain the status quo and instead either were not superpowers (and thus are not proof that a nation can maintain that status with these problems) or drastically changed the structure of government.### Assistant: >My point is, you provided examples that do not fit. What happened in the pre-hegemonic United States has no immediate relevance. Can the US exist with these flaws? Yes, you've proven that. Can the US sustain its status as a global hegemon with these flaws? That you've completely left unanswered.
Your expectations are totally unreasonable. The US has been in this position uncontested for...less than 25 years? And contested it with the Soviets from 1945 to 1991 (and won)...so about 46 years. How many examples do you want? There's the Red Scare, Vietnam, the economic downturn of the 70's, 9/11...all are debatable but there hasn't been a great deal of time to even have scenarios of the type needed to satisfy you.
No example is going to fit perfectly, but we can look at some fairly important ones:
What happened after the Civil War? *The culmination of Westward expansion.* America's economy grew and (however one might feel about the treatment of indigenous people) the US finished *conquering* their way across the continent.
What happened after the Great Depression? Fought a World War in fairly badassed fashion while paying for and producing a truly staggering amount of war material, without which the Allies would probably have failed. (Talk about a turn-around.)
The trend I see is that dark times generally presage explosive *growth* in power, not the opposite. You can disagree, but you really haven't made an argument supporting your own position. Whose outlook looks so much rosier? China with their impending saturated labor market? The EU with its general disharmony, disunity and economic schizophrenia? Russia with its antagonizing of most of its neighbors, Europe and the US? Carthage or the Ottomans they are not.
>This almost sounds like you're assuming the US has always been a empire that could conceivably go into decline. This is simply not the case. No one would have described the US as an "empire" of the world at the time of the Civil War (well, maybe they would, but I'd chalk that up to racist assumptions of manifest destiny).
Quibbling over what exactly an empire is is largely pointless; the US *does* control extensive tracts of land, most of the ocean and essentially has client states on both borders and in Europe and Asia. After the Civil War, it came to control enough uncontested land that was sizable enough to merit the imperial designation. The US was the dominant power of its hemisphere, and you really can't expect much more from anyone at that time in history. The Civil War didn't doom the US to Mexican dominance in the west and a bunch of encroaching Canadians in the Dakotas.
And referring again back to the analogy with Rome, they faced very similar problems in the Early Republican period. Then they had a Late Republic and an empire. That historical precedent, which was incorrectly used to suggest a downfall, actually suggests continued success. It also warns of possible dictatorship...but that's a separate CMV.
>Well, you pointed out other problems were sustainable, but even then only sort of. Money in politics, for example, is not the same thing as a broken system. The Roman empire solved the problem of a broken legislative body by creating a dictatorship. I think pretty much all Americans would consider the institution of an Emperor to be the fall of American values, a sort of admission of failure in our ideas. These kinds of issues are very problematic for anyone who reads your answer and comes away thinking everything will definitely go on basically within the status quo, since your examples did not maintain the status quo and instead either were not superpowers (and thus are not proof that a nation can maintain that status with these problems) or drastically changed the structure of government.
If someone gleans from these posts that I'm suggesting everything will stay within the status quo...then I don't think they understood the posts very well. My posts (especially the first one) were not specific and made no claims about what would necessarily happen. I simply pointed out that other great powers have enjoyed either the maintenance or significant increase in their power after facing challenges far more difficult than those we face today; and that the US has enjoyed the same before it was the dominant power. I was countering the claim that this comparison with other great empires suggests a downfall and saying that claim was unsupported; it would quite literally be impossible to prove that that *won't* happen.
The scope of this CMV was American power, not American power while still maintaining all the rights and privileges we currently enjoy. Americans may not like or agree with everything that happens with their government, but that is not necessarily relevant to a discussion of the government's power when compared to other governments. I did not predict the installation of an emperor or the reinforcement of democratic values, I simply pointed out that two separate empires in history have negotiated similar problems and become even more powerful. How the US may do that is up for debate, but that it can (and probably will) seems likely to me.### Human: > Your expectations are totally unreasonable. The US has been in this position uncontested for...less than 25 years?
Well, we've been a global power since WWII, so you've got a lot longer than 25 years. 25+46 is quite a large amount of time, to be honest. Though you're sort of missing my point to begin with: I am saying that the conditions in the US currently have been steadily growing less stable for a global superpower designed like the United States.
There is no inherent need to use US-specific examples, or for using historical comparisons to begin with, especially since I think there is a valid case to be made that we're in an era with such wildly different conditions that past examples have only limited value if they are not contextualized, which you completely failed to do.
> What happened after the Civil War? The culmination of Westward expansion.
There isn't exactly an equivalent thing to propel us forward now. And that is an important reason why your examples have limited value: We don't have anywhere to go but down. There is limited room for expansion economically, we certainly don't have massive chunks of the continent to truly settle and use for brand new resources.
> What happened after the Great Depression? Fought a World War in fairly badassed fashion
Just... ugh. "Badassed fashion" is so cringeworthy and historically baseless. As opposed to what, exactly? Again, if you think a massive war or massive chunks of unsettled land are the solutions, you are not exactly portraying why the US is not a in a decline.
> producing a truly staggering amount of war material
And we still do, this is not something we could even do anymore. The military industrial complex is already massive.
> Whose outlook looks so much rosier?
Power is not a zero sum game, we can lose power relative to others without anyone becoming a global hegemon. I don't need to provide some alternative force to take the US' place in any potential decline.
> Quibbling over what exactly an empire is is largely pointless; the US does control extensive tracts of land, most of the ocean and essentially has client states on both borders and in Europe and Asia
I feel like you missed the point? At the time of the Civil War, we did not have these conditions. Please reread my paragraph, if it is still unclear I guess I can explain it to you, but I really do not think it was difficult to understand in context.
> It also warns of possible dictatorship...but that's a separate CMV.
Well, I posited that the creation of an American dictatorship would amount to the decline of the United States, that it would permanently destroy credibility in important ways.
> My posts (especially the first one) were not specific and made no claims about what would necessarily happen.
You call concerns for the decline of the US being a "chicken little" and do not address any of the negative impacts of your Roman comparison, saying that the US could continue on "unthreatened" just like Rome and Britain.
> I simply pointed out that other great powers have enjoyed either the maintenance or significant increase in their power after facing challenges far more difficult than those we face today
You're literally saying right here that they grew stronger, so really what you're implying is that people ought to expect an improvement on the status quo. If that improvement included a dictatorship, it's not really an improvement at all. Also, it seems like you've done none of the world of actually explaining how Rome/Britain had *worse* conditions than the US, only that they're somewhat similar superficially. I would contest that the specific set of problems are uniquely problematic for the US given the era they are in and the way in which they've positioned themselves.
> The scope of this CMV was American power, not American power while still maintaining all the rights and privileges we currently enjoy
What a BS cop out, if the US maintained its economic and military power by turning into North Korea, everyone would say the US had declined (obviously not saying that would ever happen, this is just a logic game). No one is being a "chicken little" as you put it if you openly acknowledge that the logical conclusions of *your* examples include establishing a dictatorship. It's worth noting I don't actually think this will happen, but your examples logically conclude there and that matters for people who are convinced by your explanation.
Between not addressing the real implications of what it means to maintain power in context and your complete lack of acknowledgement that it required simply nonexistent in the modern world growth or catastrophic violence to grow from significantly less power in the past, you've done a great disservice by giving people a superficial answer that should not convince anybody. Only through ignorance of context that you've omitted was anyone really convinced.### Assistant: >Well, we've been a global power since WWII, so you've got a lot longer than 25 years. 25+46 is quite a large amount of time, to be honest.
And yet we really haven't faced a situation directly comparable to this one; point being that your expectations for a precedent are unwarranted. The existential crises we *have* faced...well, we're still here and the Soviet Union isn't a thing anymore. I say again: there was the Red Scare, Vietnam, the 70's recession...all of these events took place after WW2. The conflict with the Soviets lasted for "25+46" years (actually started pre-WW1) and the US won *hard*.
Come to think of it, we've been a global power in some sense for much longer than "since WW2". We were very active throughout the Pacific and South America in the 1800s and we financed the Allied war effort in WW1. So when you really think about it, *World War 2 is exactly what you're looking for*: an example of a time when the US, acting as a global power (since before WW1), went from the depression to the hegemony.
>I am saying that the conditions in the US currently have been steadily growing less stable for a global superpower designed like the United States.
At no time did you argue for that, so I'm didn't miss a point that you'd made. Now that you've made the point, I suggest you support it with evidence. Over what time period has this supposed steady destabilization taken place? What information do you have that suggests this?
>There isn't exactly an equivalent thing to propel us forward now. And that is an important reason why your examples have limited value: We don't have anywhere to go but down. There is limited room for expansion economically, we certainly don't have massive chunks of the continent to truly settle and use for brand new resources.
...there is certainly room to expand. As long as there is money, resources to be used and people to serve, there are places to expand. Use your imagination. How is it that the US has the economy it does without particularly strong manufacturing or commodities exports? I mean, we're a service-based economy; most people get paid to do things for each other, not make things or remove things from the earth and give them to others. That means that fulfilling the desires of people is the place that the US economy expands. That's why we have Netflix and iPods. We don't need them, we want them. And fulfilling that want will make you more money than coal mining or farming.
>>What happened after the Great Depression? Fought a World War in fairly badassed fashion
>Just... ugh. "Badassed fashion" is so cringeworthy and historically baseless. As opposed to what, exactly? Again, if you think a massive war or massive chunks of unsettled land are the solutions, you are not exactly portraying why the US is not a in a decline.
1) Forgive me for trying to have fun. I hope the rest of this response will be sufficiently serious for you.
2) It was fucking badass. That's an objective observation. Dudes who stormed the beaches at Normandy: *Badass*. Dudes who took Iwo Jima: *Badass*. As opposed to fucking nobody; the Brits were great, the Soviets were...durable and the Nazis and Japanese Imperials were assholes. I really don't care if you cringe.
3) You missed the part where the US went from the depths of the Great Depression to a ridiculously unprecedented level of industrial output while fielding an enormous armed force and equipping both of their major allies with their most vital gear...and came out as the single most powerful country on the planet.
4) I didn't advocate any "solution". I made observations about history. I said that the US went from the Great Depression to the height of world power in a relatively short period of time. If you somehow infer that I think we need a war to solve our current problems...*then that was an absurd thing for you to infer* because I never said that...at all...ever.
>Power is not a zero sum game, we can lose power relative to others without anyone becoming a global hegemon. I don't need to provide some alternative force to take the US' place in any potential decline.
You're disregarding examples I give because you say the threat is to the US *as global hegemon* and the ones I describe are supposedly irrelevant because they don't address that position of power. If you're now suggesting that it's not actually about the position but the ability to exert power...then all the examples now apply because in all those examples American power increased by any objective measure.
And yeah, you actually do have to determine who would be more powerful in a given area. The US loses power in Asia when someone like China can deny or oppose that power...thereby gaining power themselves. That's why *power vacuums* generally fill very quickly. If the US is weakened as measured against itself *while the rest of the world weakens at a similar rate* (as would happen in say...a global recession), then the US has not lost power.
>I feel like you missed the point? At the time of the Civil War, we did not have these conditions. Please reread my paragraph, if it is still unclear I guess I can explain it to you, but I really do not think it was difficult to understand in context.
No I didn't. You were saying that the US was not an empire at the time of the Civil War and as such, the circumstances are different and all comparisons are wrong. I responded by saying that relative to expectation and geographical limitation, the US *was* an empire. It went out, conquered people and took control of land it hadn't controlled before. *That's what an empire does.*
So what you absolutely *can* do is measure the effects of the Civil War against the reactions of others in a position to challenge US power...they didn't. The US settled the Civil War and proceeded to grow in power both as it was measured against itself and as measure against the rest of the world. I really don't understand how you can just say "not the same" and ignore it.
>You call concerns for the decline of the US being a "chicken little" and do not address any of the negative impacts of your Roman comparison, saying that the US could continue on "unthreatened" just like Rome and Britain.
What? There are no negative effects from a comparison with Rome. There is simply the observation that the comparison made with Rome is inapt. OP and others have argued that there was some mythical correlation between inequality and the fall of these empires, I pointed out that there was no such correlation. To say that there is no correlation is **not an argument in favor of anything**. I don't know how to make that clearer.
>You're literally saying right here that they grew stronger, so really what you're implying is that people ought to expect an improvement on the status quo. If that improvement included a dictatorship, it's not really an improvement at all.
Let me be really, really clear: I am in no way implying anything you just said. You inferred that all on your own and you really shouldn't have.
I made a historical observation; I told you facts about history. At no point did I say "so this means we should follow example X" or that we should continue engaging in anything in particular. What I said was that other great powers have weathered these storms just fine, so seeing the stormclouds and claiming the sky is falling is a silly thing to do.
>Also, it seems like you've done none of the world of actually explaining how Rome/Britain had worse conditions than the US, only that they're somewhat similar superficially.
[My response to someone else.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lkoeu/cmv_the_united_states_is_an_empire_in_decline_and/clw1eaq)
>I would contest that the specific set of problems are uniquely problematic for the US given the era they are in and the way in which they've positioned themselves.
That would be an interesting argument. If you *made* the argument instead of just stating it, then that would be something to talk about. But I'm not going to address what amounts to you saying "it's really different this time".
>What a BS cop out, if the US maintained its economic and military power by turning into North Korea, everyone would say the US had declined.
It's not a cop out to say what the discussion was about. It was about American power and hegemony. I at no point claimed to know what the US ought to do; I predicted the likely trajectory of power. Your conclusion regarding my examples is simplistic and wrong. I can look at two separate empires, see how they dealt with trying times and conclude that another great power will find a way as well. If you think that citing the Roman empire and saying that they became even more powerful after the republic became the empire (an objective historical fact) carries the clear implication that I'm saying we ought to have a dictator...then I really don't know what to tell you.
Also, if the US had a dictator and enjoyed total dominance and comfort throughout the world, I really don't think anyone would say they had declined. (It's apparently necessary for me to say that I don't think this should happen.)
>Between not addressing the real implications of what it means to maintain power..[blah]. Only through ignorance of context that you've omitted was anyone really convinced.
That's nonsense. The only person who appears to have drawn these conclusions is you and I've explained several times why you're completely off base. I didn't address what the US *should* do, but you've acted as if I have. You've done a disservice to yourself. You could have had a productive conversation here by asking a question: The Romans and the British both made significant compromises on their way to and in support of their empires. Do you think the US has or will have to make similar compromises?
That would have given you my actual answers to questions you decided to answer for me. |
### Human: This sub, Reddit, and the internet, are perfect examples of eurocentrism and white elitism that whites deny exist. As such, I no longer have empathy towards the vast amount of western redditors and the problems they go through. CMV### Assistant: > Anyway, the crux of the matter is, I no longer feel any sort of empathy for white redditors and their problems. Society is catered towards them. Same thing as any other internet site with mostly white users. What keeps me hearty at night is knowing how depressed the lot of them(you) are and knowing that you get to feel hated for things beyond your control like others do.
I'm going to be frank and say I find this attitude pretty disgusting. The fact that you actually feel pleasure at the suffering of others does not make you a very nice person, and your position of not caring about white people is *at best* ignorant and *at worst* racist. Saying 'society is catered to white people, so they aren't allowed to complain about anything' is about as informed as saying 'maths tests are catered towards people with arms and brains, and so people with arms and brains aren't allowed to complain about failing them'. The colour of your skin isn't the only factor in life. There are myriad factors that make someone lucky or unlucky in a certain society.
Suffering is suffering. Problems are problems. They don't gain or lose value depending on what the colour of your skin is.### Human: Luck hasn't got anything to do with it, it's *systemic* racism! Literally, the system is **geared** towards marginalizing non-whites and non-white culture!
Pointing out that white people are the recipients of privilege and that they bend over backwards to defend this privilege isn't an uninformed outlook at all-- it's a part of anti-colonial sentiment, but hey, I guess since "colonialism" is "ancient history" people who still feel the impacts should just "move on", right?### Assistant: Did you read beyond my first sentence? I wasn't disputing his observation that 'white people have it better'. I was contesting his racist idea that all white people are racist and deserve to suffer.### Human: I didn't pick up on "all white people are racist" from the OP at all-- "white people are self-centered/myopic", I picked up on that, and I generally agree-- white people get up in arms when you even begin to suggest they have privilege (and then compound the issue by shoehorning in an assumption characterized around the idea that if you're poor/ill/etc. you don't receive privilege, which really isn't the cast at all).
And frankly, as a white male, yes, white people *do* deserve to suffer **so long as they keep taking advantage of a system of privilege**-- which most white people aren't keen to give up in the first place.### Assistant: > I didn't pick up on "all white people are racist" from the OP at all-- "white people are self-centered/myopic"
You're right, he didn't start that argument until his later comments. But in the OP he does state he enjoys white people suffering.
>white people get up in arms when you even begin to suggest they have privilege (and then compound the issue by shoehorning in an assumption characterized around the idea that if you're poor/ill/etc. you don't receive privilege, which really isn't the cast at all).
So what? That's not what I am contesting. I am contesting that it is incredibly racist to want an ethnic group to suffer because they have it better than other ethnic groups. That's like wanting attractive people to suffer because society favours them over unattractive people.
> And frankly, as a white male, yes, white people do deserve to suffer
Then you are just as immoral as the OP. That is a disgusting attitude to hold. I don't wish suffering on anyone - especially not because of the colour of their skin.### Human: >So what? That's not what I am contesting. I am contesting that it is incredibly racist to want an ethnic group to suffer because they have it better than other ethnic groups. That's like wanting attractive people to suffer because society favours them over unattractive people.
Racist? Methinks you're struggling to make yourself into a victim here-- straight up, white people *cannot* experience racism like non-white persons experience it. They live in a world shaped by white culture in the most brutal ways, and are still living with the benefits of that brutality even long after it has passed. The very systems white people prop up are a result of their invasion of non-white peoples lives.
And who are you to sling around accusations of immorality for suggesting that white people ought to live through the suffering they inflict on others? But I can see you're not nearly as charitable as you want others to be-- instead of contextualizing my comment (because I didn't just say "white people deserve to suffer. full stop."), you tried to moralize me into a corner... conveniently ignoring that my entire point rests on the fact that the world as we know it is shaped by the machinations of white people, to their benefit. If white people gave up privilege, I might be a bit more amenable to their "suffering".### Assistant: > Racist? Methinks you're struggling to make yourself into a victim here-- straight up, white people cannot experience racism like non-white persons experience it. They live in a world shaped by white culture in the most brutal ways, and are still living with the benefits of that brutality even long after it has passed. The very systems white people prop up are a result of their invasion of non-white peoples lives.
Racism is believing people should suffer based on the colour of their skin. It's as simple as that.
> ignoring that my entire point rests on the fact that the world as we know it is shaped by the machinations of white people, to their benefit. If white people gave up privilege, I might be a bit more amenable to their "suffering".
Wanting anyone to suffer is an immoral position to hold, regardless of who they are - it's as simple as that. So yes, it is disgusting, and yes, I am going to moralise.
Out of interest though, do you believe men should suffer? Do you believe attractive people should suffer? Do you believe people born into wealthy families should suffer? Do you believe people without life-long illnesses should suffer? There are many other examples of the sorts of advantages one can acquire from life's genetic and geographic lottery.
I suppose by your logic, rich, attractive white healthy males should suffer the most. What do you wish on them? Thumbscrews? Chinese water torture? Beheading?### Human: You sure like to throw the 'that's racist' card around like you know what you're talking about. You don't... know what you're talking about. At all.
Look up the definition of racism. It's not believing people should suffer based on their skin color.
Also, you ignored the grievous point. It's not that people should suffer. It's that white people act like they're suffering more than anybody in the world, when they literally do not know the meaning of the word suffering as they do not face racism in their own western world. At all.### Assistant: > Look up the definition of racism. It's not believing people should suffer based on their skin color.
Obviously it's not the *definition* of racism; it's an *example* of it. Racism is believing one race is superior to another and believing that people should be treated in a certain way because of their race. Hitler thought that Jews should die because they were Jews. OP thinks white people deserve suffering because they're white. Both are racist positions.
> Also, you ignored the grievous point. It's not that people should suffer.
The OP said - in quite plain terms - that he enjoys the suffering of white people, and that they are not deserving of empathy. This is the part of OP's vitriol I consider to be racist and immoral (as well as his later arguments in the comments that 'all white people are racist').
> It's that white people act like they're suffering more than anybody in the world, when they literally do not know the meaning of the word suffering as they do not face racism in their own western world. At all.
More stupid generalisations. Suffering is suffering. Stating that white people don't suffer just because they're white is like saying that Apple Macs don't ever break because they don't get viruses. There are more causes of suffering in the world than racism.### Human: No... the OP said that there is no empathy any more. Not an enjoyment of suffering. But your conflating of it proves the point.
Racism is the institutional discrimination of minorities. There is no intitution that oppresses white people. There is, however, within the institution of reddit itself, a system in place that promotes white men and demotes minorities.
If this wasn't true, then SRS would not exist. Which, I might add, does a fine job of proving OP's point. Really, you should check it out. Because looking at it, how can you feel anything positive to such terrible, horrible people? And in doing so, becoming guilty of oppressing minorities and contributing to their suffering.
> Stating that white people don't suffer just because they're white is
Being white doesn't make you suffer-proof. But it does release you from many binds that the rest of us have to deal with. There is a fuckton of suffering that white men in the western world, especially America, simply will never have the slightest clue about.### Assistant: > No... the OP said that there is no empathy any more. Not an enjoyment of suffering
*"What keeps me hearty at night is knowing how depressed the lot of them(you) are and knowing that you get to feel hated for things beyond your control like others do."*
>Racism is the institutional discrimination of minorities.#
No it isn't. Where are you getting that definition from?
> Really, you should check it out. Because looking at it, how can you feel anything positive to such terrible, horrible people? And in doing so, becoming guilty of oppressing minorities and contributing to their suffering.
I am not a member of SRS, I have nothing to feel guilty about.
> Being white doesn't make you suffer-proof. But it does release you from many binds that the rest of us have to deal with. There is a fuckton of suffering that white men in the western world, especially America, simply will never have the slightest clue about.
So? The same could be said of non-cancer sufferers. Should we stop feeling empathy for non-cancer sufferers because they have no idea how much suffering a cancer patient goes through?### Human: When the non-cancer sufferers are the cause of other's cancer and continue to torture those with cancer and sadistically take pleasure in said torture? Then yeah, it might be worth looking down on them.
I don't think you understand the concepts combining 'power' and 'privilege.' White people have both, and on reddit they wield it recklessly, dangerously, and at the expense of others.
You should check out SRS, it shows you how terrible people are when they wield power and privilege over other minorities.### Assistant: So what about men and women? Men are the cause of much sexism and suffering of women - and they are undoubtedly in a position of 'privilege' in many societies, and have been throughout history. Are all men guilty? Do all men deserve to suffer for being born male?
Can you tell me please - specifically - what INDIVIDUAL white people are guilty of (and thus why they deserve to be punished)? What exactly am I, as a white person, guilty of? By your logic, apparently it was a grievous sin for me to have been born white. By your (racist) logic - people can be held accountable for the crimes of others, and people deserve to be punished for being born a certain way.### Human: Specifically? Those who by action, or by inaction, comply with and support a prejudicial system of power which oppresses others.
You yourself seem to be guilty of refusing to acknowledge it, thus allowing it to perpetuate. You're only 'guilty' in the sense that someone would be guilty if they could prevent a murder from occurring without any negative effect on themself. Which is an AT BEST scenario. At worse, you are as guilty as one who provides the tools, and gives instructions, to make occur a murder that someone else carries out. Which you do by denying others their experience.
Your overtly emotional exaggeration of me does you know favors. Arguments aren't won by appeal to emotion.
And also yes, there is in fact a system in place which oppresses women. It's a tad bit of the same thing. By being a man, by being complacent, by reaping the benefits of the system and refusing to acknowledge the harm and damage it does to others, that would make you guilty.### Assistant: > You yourself seem to be guilty of refusing to acknowledge it
I'm not even guilty of that, because I have acknowledged it multiple times throughout this thread. When have I ever denied it? The fact that 'white people have it better' is not the part of your argument I take issue with. What I take issue is your claim that individual white people deserve to be punished because of being born white - and furthermore your claim that we can't have sympathy for any of their problems because of this. That is a disgusting attitude to have. There isn't a single person in Western society who isn't 'guilty' to some extent of passivity. If you buy yourself a new phone when there are children starving in Africa you can be said to be 'guilty' of not helping them and preventing their suffering.
> Your overtly emotional exaggeration of me does you know favors. Arguments aren't won by appeal to emotion.
I am not being emotional - I am stating facts. Your arguments are racist. You are claiming we should treat people badly because of the colour of their skin. That is a racist position to hold.
> And also yes, there is in fact a system in place which oppresses women. It's a tad bit of the same thing. By being a man, by being complacent, by reaping the benefits of the system and refusing to acknowledge the harm and damage it does to others, that would make you guilty.
What exactly is your alternative to being in 'the system', by the way? Become a recluse in the mountains?### Human: You sure do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not OP. I'm not saying we should treat majorities bad. But I am saying that a white person feeling bad that a black person wouldn't give a high five, is in no way shape or form equal to the half dozen times white people would come in and burn, raze, and destroy black communities.
If you don't want to be a part of the system, you don't have to be a recluse, no. When you ignore, hand wave, and otherwise dismiss the experience of minorities, you're enabling oppression. When you point it out, recognize it, and work against it, then you're no longer part of the system.
It's not the same as being guilty of watching kids starving in another country. It would be more apt to say that it's relatively equivalent to purchasing alcohol for an alcoholic and further enabling alcoholism.
And yes, you're being emotional. You're angry. You keep calling me racist, while ignoring that racism is power with oppression. Neither of which I have.### Assistant: > In case you haven't noticed, I'm not OP
Obviously. Do you think I would have been mentioning OP in the third person if I thought you were OP?
> I'm not saying we should treat majorities bad. But I am saying that a white person feeling bad that a black person wouldn't give a high five, is in no way shape or form equal to the half dozen times white people would come in and burn, raze, and destroy black communities.
I completely agree. Not getting a high five isn't as bad as murder. Who exactly would disagree with that?
>When you point it out, recognize it, and work against it, then you're no longer part of the system.
No, you're still a part of it. You pay money to people who are a part of it.
> It's not the same as being guilty of watching kids starving in another country. It would be more apt to say that it's relatively equivalent to purchasing alcohol for an alcoholic and further enabling alcoholism.
No, because that is an active decision. We are talking about passivity here. You are condemning people's passivity. Passivity is comparable to passivity.
> And yes, you're being emotional. You're angry. You keep calling me racist, while ignoring that racism is power with oppression. Neither of which I have.
I am not angry, and you are a racist. A racist is someone who believes one race should be treated worse than another. Racism is a mentality and is not exclusive to people who are in a position of power.### Human: Just so we're clear.
I'm racist because I believe that the experience of minorities should be acknowledged and addressed.
You're not racist because you believe that the experience of minorities should be hidden away and tucked under the rug because it makes you uncomfortable. Which is great that you can do that because there is a system in place in this world that puts a white face on the cover of every magazine. And every article has white people doing good things, and colored people doing bad things... even when they do the same things.
Got it.### Assistant: > I'm racist because I believe that the experience of minorities should be acknowledged and addressed.
No. That is the part of your argument I happen to agree with. You are racist because you believe that people should be treated in a certain way because of what race they are - regardless of any other factors. ie: you believe that all white people should be treated badly simply because they are white.
> You're not racist because you believe that the experience of minorities should be hidden away and tucked under the rug because it makes you uncomfortable
That is the opposite of what I believe.### Human: So... let's try this one last time.
I looked over our conversation. Know what I noticed? I noticed that I did NOT in fact promote the idea that white people should suffer. What I did say was that white people do not and will not any time soon be suffering the way minorities do.
What you did, and you DID do this, was vilify me. You turned me into the villain by saying I'm a racist and that I promote racist. You realize how fucked up that is, right? I'm NOT the bad guy. I'm trying to tell you that there is a system in place which oppresses minorities.
**And for some odd strange reason you wish to dismiss this entirely.**
Which means you are taking my knowledge as a minority, my experience as a minority, and dismissing it, hiding it away.
That's pretty self-rightous of you. In theory, you're not a racist. But as we've discovered in this thread, you sure do enjoy being dismissive of the thoughts and opinions of minorities.
Edit: If you're really not a bigot, you should give SRS a try.### Assistant: You came into the conversation defending the views of someone who believes (in his words) *"white people do deserve to suffer"*.
When I expressed my disgust at his racist mentality, you told me that he wasn't racist and went on to say that *"white people act like they're suffering more than anybody in the world, when they literally do not know the meaning of the word suffering as they do not face racism in their own western world. At all"*.
So yes, you did seem to be supporting the idea that white people deserve to suffer. At any rate, the arguments you went on to give were equally racist, bigoted and unpleasant. According to you, we should look down on white people. *"When the non-cancer sufferers are the cause of other's cancer and continue to torture those with cancer and sadistically take pleasure in said torture? Then yeah, it might be worth looking down on them."*
You then went on to do what all racists do and make absurd generalisations. According to you, simply because SRS exists, all white people are *"guilty of oppressing minorities and contributing to their suffering".* What a ridiculous and disgusting attitude to have. Absolutely no different from saying that all black people are thieves purely because some of them are.
> That's pretty self-rightous of you. In theory, you're not a racist. But as we've discovered in this thread, you sure do enjoy being dismissive of the thoughts and opinions of minorities.
I had no idea you were a minority. In fact, I thought you were white - though reading back on the thread it seems it was the other user who said he as white, and mistakenly I thought that it was you who said it. |
### Human: CMV: Saying that we are in a computer simulation is a meaningless, nonsensical statement### Assistant: Bostrom's argument that I've previously read suggests the following:
Let's say we are in a computer simulation (which can be argued is actually quite likely). What is the purpose of this simulation? Is it to simulate a particular point in past history, or to determine certain particular outcomes to certain particular actions?
If there is a purpose, then *certain parts of the simulation might be more important than others*. This is important.
Let's say the simulators want to see how various actions affect the outcome of American History (just a random example). Let's say they care particularly about Obama's term in office, and it's effects. Then it could be suggested that Obama and his government, and his staff, and his staff's staff are quite relevant to the simulation. Some groundhog in Asia is probably not that relevant.
Due to potential limits of the simulation, some aspects may have "shortcuts". Like the groundhog in Asia. Maybe it's not fully simulated. Only the most relevant parts of the simulation are simulated in great detail. Maybe the groundhog is just running very basic code. Maybe it's brain isn't even simulated.
What about *people*? Perhaps only relevant and important people are simulated fully. The other people are basically empty shells that superficially *appear human*, but aren't really. What does this mean?
It means that if you want to continue living as a real person, and not be replaced by some superficial shell program, you might wanna be involved in important things, near important people.
This is just one single example... but the idea would hold for all sorts of different considerations. The fact that we are probably in a simulation means that certain things might be more or less well-simulated. We haven't found any such cases yet - but that doesn't mean we won't in the future.### Human: I think that the argument that simulation is likely is misguided, I find that reasoning really weird, it's magical thinking. There is basically an infinite number of hypotheses competing with the simulation hypothesis.
You can't assume anything about the outer universe using concepts of the simulated universe. The physical laws there may be completely, utterly different. Perhaps the outer universe is just random chaos and the simulation is an accident.
(Also, I think you can't simulate consciousness on a computer but that's a slightly different argument.)### Assistant: > I think you can't simulate consciousness
*That* is magical thinking.### Human: *Why* you think so?### Assistant: Magical = Supernatural. If consciousness is natural, aka a result of the laws of physics, then it can be modeled (aka simulated).
If consciousness is supernatural, well now we're in the realm of magic. From one of your comments, it sounds like you *are* a supernaturalist, therefore you will never achieve agreement with scientific thinkers because you reason based on fundamentally incompatible axioms (naturalism vs. supernaturalism).### Human: Consciousness is a methaphysical concept, i.e. it's above physics.### Assistant: I disagree with your definition. It is magical thinking.### Human: I think it's not, so let's agree to disagree.### Assistant: If it is not natural, it is supernatural. You said "above [nature]," a euphemism for "supernatural." I can't imagine how you could disagree with that statement - it is one of vocabulary, not philosophy.### Human: The connotations of those words are very different, but anyway, let's call it supernatural if you want.### Assistant: OK, well my point is, you seemed to post a CMV using a scientific argument (what cannot be test/observed is unknowable). Then later you made a completely unscientific claim (consciousness is supernatural/magical/"above" science). You can't coherently have it both ways. You have, internally, a disagreement about whether the universe should be viewed through the lens of science or the lens of magic.
If you view the universe through the lens of science, then everything is natural (by definition) and can therefore be modeled/simulated, including consciousness. So going back to your original question: Simulation has demonstrable utility. So once you accept that there is both ability and motivation to build a simulation, you have reason enough to take seriously the idea that we are experiencing a simulation.
If you view the universe through the lens of supernatural/magical/"above" science thinking, all bets are off and one can no longer rely scientific reasoning as you did earlier.### Human: The utility of this simulation could be that we are in a training program, that time only exists because the "soul" has something to learn here while manifest in human form. This is something that is postulated in new age-type theory. Science and certain religions both conclude that time itself is an illusion and doesn't actually exist.### Assistant: I don't think we have any evidence at all indicating whether or not our universe is a simulation or what the motivation for a simulation is. We have evidence that simulation is technically possible and has a variety of possible uses. Beyond that, we need to devise actual scientific experiments to determine if or why this is a simulation. Anything else is pure speculation. |
### Human: CMV: College is mostly about signaling.### Assistant: Is there anything that isn't signaling in your view? You say med school isn't signaling, but how is that true? Are you saying med students actually care about the content of med school but, say, women's studies majors don't care about the content of their classes?
In my view, someone studying education with the intent of becoming a teacher isn't signaling because they are likely actually interested in the content of the classes so that they can be a good teacher. But you could turn that around and say "they're only taking the classes so they look good to future employers."
I guess, ultimately, I see all of college as both signaling and working for personal benefit (which in turn contributes to signaling.) People take classes because they are interested in the subject *and* because it makes them look good. If you lose sight of either one, you're going to have a bad time.### Human: >Is there anything that isn't signaling in your view? You say med school isn't signaling, but how is that true?
Yes. If the employer cares that you know the substantive content of what you learned in school, then it's not signaling. If I run a hospital, I care very much that my doctors actually know medicine, and med school is (as far as I'm aware) all about teaching you the medical knowledge you need to be able to be a doctor.
>Are you saying med students actually care about the content of med school but, say, women's studies majors don't care about the content of their classes?
It's not that they don't enjoy the classes, or care about the content on a personal level, it's that to the extent they're going to school to further their careers, they know the content they're learning isn't going to be used directly in their careers.
Obviously it's not everyone, but if you ask college students why they are going to college, I think "to get a good/better job" will be your #1 answer.
>In my view, someone studying education with the intent of becoming a teacher isn't signaling because they are likely actually interested in the content of the classes so that they can be a good teacher. But you could turn that around and say "they're only taking the classes so they look good to future employers."
How much of what you learn as an education major gets directly used in the craft of teaching? If it's a lot of what you get taught, then you're right about it in respect to education majors. If not, then it wouldn't really change my view. I don't know enough about being an education major to be informed on that specific topic though, so more info would be greatly appreciated.
>I guess, ultimately, I see all of college as both signaling and working for personal benefit (which in turn contributes to signaling.) People take classes because they are interested in the subject and because it makes them look good. If you lose sight of either one, you're going to have a bad time.
That's fair. I don't think it's changed my view yet, but it has some potential to. I think for the most part people go to college for practical reasons. Perhaps a few very rich or very foolish people go for primarily personal growth. Can you point to evidence that a substantial number of college students are not primarily interested in career advancement?### Assistant: > If the employer cares that you know the substantive content of what you learned in school, then it's not signaling.
But that's a function of the employer and the job the graduate takes, not a function of college itself, as you claim.
"Newspaper employer *cares* that the person's degree is in English? College *is not* only about signalling."
"Restaurant employer does *not care* that the person's degree is in English? College *is* only about signalling."### Human: I think your example proves OP correct.
The newspaper cares about the person's ability to gather information and accurately report it in writing. A certain college degree suggests you have this ability, but they don't care about your grades in science, math, Fench or the dozen-odd aimless electives. All they're doing is exactly what OP describes: treating your degree as a stand-in for the skills they want.
At most, OP should've picked a better title.### Assistant: You could just as easily say that a hospital only cares about a person's ability to diagnose patients and effectively treat them, and a certain college degree suggests the ability to do so. Having a degree in English or Journalism does indicate that you are qualified to work at a newspaper, but if does so because, in the pursuit of it, you are acquiring the skills necessary to gather information and accurate report it in writing.
In the case of employment and college degrees signalling would be on the order of "Oh, this person went to college, they must be intelligent and diligent enough to work for us." This is different from "Oh, this person pursued this degree, this indicates that they should have the skills to do this kind of work for us."
You can certainly still argue that college is mainly about signalling (the fact that only so many college grads get a job in their field of study would be evidence towards it), but saying that an English major signals to a publisher is using a trivial definition of the term.### Human: Interestingly enough, my brother is a reporter and it's apparently axiomatic that you don't hire journalism majors. He majored in philosophy.
I think your example is inapt because it's picking one of the rare times when a degree is actually geared toward a specific job and primarily composed of courses that deal with that job. I would expect that for a PhD.
I don't see anything like that with the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. With the exception of specialized degrees geared towards specific employment fields, they appear to be interchangeable on job applications. I'm getting a degree right now for no other reason than than my current and prospective employers all require degrees of some kind for the jobs I want. Not a certain kind of specialized degree; just a degree.### Assistant: That's kind of my point. You wouldn't consider a medical degree to be signalling, but I can construct an argument using the exact same framework used for the newspaper job as to how your medical degree "signals" for a job as a doctor.
A lot of college programs teach you skills that will help you in a job in that field. People keep saying in this thread to ignore the hard sciences, but they are all valid examples of this. In CS, CE, Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and any engineering field you will gain knowledge and skills relevant to your field.
Even in your brother's case, a degree in philosophy also teaches you skills that could be utilized in any for of writing. Imagine how prepared your brother was for that job after years of writing papers (in philosophy) compared to a computer science graduate who spent his years coding and writing technical reports.
I'm not trying to argue that signalling is non-existent in the job market, just that the definition of it used here is trivializing the concept. Or at least that signalling only plays a part in what goes into the employment process. |
### Human: CMV: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a waste of taxpayer dollars and conducts practices that should be / are illegal.### Assistant: >According to the 4th amendment, persons shall not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure but upon probable cause. Even though the arrival at an airport with the knowledge that you are to be screened in the interest of national security is considered consent, it seems that a personal search and a production of a 3 dimensional model of the traveler on a computer screen and a seizure of all liquids over 3 ounces is, by reasonable standards, unreasonable.
Unfortunately if you are flying with an airline or through a major airport, you are subject to their rules and regulations. You waive your right to be searched and you accept that you may lost items through seizure. I agree, it's quite excessive. At the same time, your rights aren't being violated if you're consenting. Don't want TSA searching you? Don't fly through major airports.
>The TSA has previously threatened that passengers not willing to submit to their invasive procedures could face an $11,000 USD fine, as well as being detained and unable to leave the airport.
In my experience flying in the States(Seattle earlier this year) we had the option of a quick pat down versus a scan. I took the pat down and it was done just as it would have been at a music concert. I'll agree, there are some problems with this system(as you outlined above) but remember that the majority of TSA agents, by far, do not engage in this behavior. Not to equate the TSA with the police force, but it's similar to stating that because one member of the force shot a suspect with questionable grounds, the entire system must be flawed. You can't fairly count the actions of a small minority to represent the majority.
>Overall, I would like my view to be changed on the TSA. I would like to think that I'm safer with them in place, but their invasive techniques make me wonder.
You are. Sort of.
The goal of security like this isn't to really catch terrorists or criminals directly, but rather to provide a deterrent for those who would otherwise attempt. If I know that every third person gets a intensive search, or if I can be detained and have my flight tickets(and potentially passport) revoked or held, I see my chances of success much lower.
The amount of security in most airports is rather effective, and the TSA is just an irritating extra barrier. A terrorist(just as an example) can see his chances of getting passed a metal detector and carry on check to be pretty high, but if there is a good chance he will be thoroughly searched or his weapon/explosive seized in addition to his immediate arrest, he may reconsider.
Does it stop people from attempting to hijack or attack planes? Not really, as far as we know. Does it contribute? Yes.### Human: Sorry, it's my first time here. How do I delta you?### Assistant: Unicode
&/#/8/7/1/0
No slashes### Human: Why, thank you. You have changed my view by providing me with the information that, even thought the TSA is not morally right, they are legally right. Have a delta! : ∆### Assistant: Being legal isn't the same as being Constitutional. Congress can pass a law that requires everyone to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it would be legal until someone sues their way up to the Supreme Court and they strike it down (of course... if they uphold the law then compulsory Pastafarianism would be considered both legal and Constitutional until another case makes it to another Supreme Court and they overturn the first ruling).
So aside from it being an unconstitutional invasion of privacy that is currently sanctioned by law, the fact remains that it is not effective as security and barely effective as security theater. I recently flew and got to experience for the first time their "fast lane" security. I forget what they called it ("pre-clear" or something?) but when I got there they asked if my ticket indicated that I'd be in the fast lane, and it didn't. But they waved me through to that one anyway. That line was great! They didn't make my take my laptop out of the bag nor did I have to remove my shoes. I walked through the metal detector and picked up my bag from the X-ray belt and was on my way!
Rather than put me in a good mood, it annoyed the hell out of me. First, that I was arbitrarily chosen when others had to go through the standard routine of removing their shoes and all made no security sense to me. All it did was convince me even more that their procedures are unnecessary and unrelated to real security. Clearly the burdensome requirements of the slow lane aren't needed for secure travel, so the fast lane shouldn't be the exception for someone's lucky day, it should be the default for everyone!
I'm all for having security when I travel, but I'm with OP that what the TSA provides is NOT security and is furthermore an unconstitutional burden on citizens.### Human: Was there an explosive dog around? Every time I have gone through the TSA pre lanes, without it indicated on my ticket, a dog was sniffing the feet of everyone who walked past that line.### Assistant: Not that I saw. Just a simplified security process. |
### Human: CMV: Children should not watch modern television, specifically commercials.### Assistant: > I can't remember where all 50 states are
[Clearly, you were not watching the right cartoons.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSvJ9SN8THE)
You can't pin the blame on television for your own personal inability to know certain things. You remember a catchy or notable Sears commercial, but that's just an isolated advertisement. It did not "take up" space in your mind. [No amount of television within a human lifespan could fill your mind, leaving no room for facts](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/).
Hell, quite the contrary, television can actually help with learning in young children. I've already listed the states example from Animaniacs, but even today I still recall the months and the order they go in thanks to the song from Blue's Clues. Heck, that show even taught me the planets long before a High School Science class attempted to teach it to me.
Like with all entertainment, moderation is key, and it is the job of the parent to enforce that moderation to a healthy degree. By teaching children how to moderate their television input on their own, they can learn to apply those moderation skills to other things such as dietary habits.
By ignoring the TV, you can't flee from advertisements. They're on the radio, they're on billboards, they're in movie theaters, magazines, heck even books will advertise other works by the author.### Human: I do agree there are good examples, yes. Now with things like the internet I believe the options are far superior as well. Back when I grew up, we couldn't watch the same Animaniacs example over and over again, which would have been perfect. Repetition is a very helpful tool in memorization.
I don't believe regular advertisements have as much of an effect though, since they are typically shorter and can be ignored. With television, it IS your distraction, and you can't skip the commercials unless you have a device to fast forward through them. In a magazine the pages can be skipped, and even then there's the lack of repetition that is what really ingrains the idea in someone's mind.
The thought that your mind can't ever be filled up is very good to know, but at the same time do you not agree that if television was designed for children in the sense that it was all about learning and not selling people products that it would be better?### Assistant: > Back when I grew up, we couldn't watch the same Animaniacs example over and over again, which would have been perfect. Repetition is a very helpful tool in memorization.
And yet after one or two viewings of the Blue's Clue's example I was able to learn my planets and months. These are just isolated examples.
> With television, it IS your distraction, and you can't skip the commercials unless you have a device to fast forward through them.
Nothing stopping the viewer from muting the TV, distracting themselves with something else (phone, magazine, another channel, Game Boy). And so what? Advertisements aren't things to be avoided like the plague. They're an integral part of business.
>television was designed for children in the sense that it was all about learning and not selling people products that it would be better?
Television programs aren't, but TV needs advertisements to make money so they can air their shows. Vindicating television for the presence of commercials is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Are their other examples other than the Sears example that really stick out to your mind? I mean, if you watched TV throughout as a child, the fact that only a single Ad managed to stick in your mind would be proof that the ads are not as long staying as you might think.### Human: There are some, such as like for Cross Fire or various video games or kids toys. And Diabeetus, motorized wheel chairs for adults, all the shit that came on during The Price is Right.
Just some of those things I was actually interested in as a child so I don't mind it as much.
I suppose as what one person said, the opportunity cost is the biggest problem I have with the whole commercial thing.
I was mostly referring to commercials being the issue though, not television itself.### Assistant: So what is the issue then? You have conceded that advertisements do not take up space in the mind, and thus cannot detriment learning, then what really is the real negative aspect of children watching TV ads?### Human: Eh, I suppose you're right. Other than opportunity cost, it doesn't really effect you much. And obviously no one can be taking advantage of all their resources 100% of the time.
Consider me ∆### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/selfproclaimed. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/selfproclaimed)]
^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)] |
### Human: Girl Scout cookies are exploiting little girls for money CMV### Assistant: >Approximately 70% of the proceeds stay in the local Girl Scout council to support Girl Scouting in that area, including a portion, approximately 15%, that goes directly to the group selling the cookies
([source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Scout_Cookies#Profits))
Also, they do it because they want to-- it is entirely voluntary so it's absolutely not exploitative.### Human: >Also, they do it because they want to-- it is entirely voluntary so it's absolutely not exploitative.
This doesn't hold water when it comes to children. We don't consider them to be developed enough to actually make decisions for themselves.### Assistant: So is having your kid take piano lessons even if they don't want to (because they would rather be playing video games) exploitative? (I don't mean being a tiger parent, but just having lessons once or twice a week.) Where do you draw the line?### Human: Exploitative is entirely on the adult side. How the child feels doesn't really factor, positive or negative. Making your kid take piano lessons isn't exploitative no matter how much they hate it, having a sexual relation with a kid is exploitative no matter how much they enjoy it. It simply isn't a good metric to determine exploitation, there's no "line" to draw.### Assistant: So how can you say that it is exploitative to have a girl scout cookie program?
Also, regarding this comment earlier:
>We don't consider them to be developed enough to actually make decisions for themselves.
Who is "we"? There is no consensus about when the frontal lobe is developed. Sure, from a legal standpoint, you have the age of consent (which also varies by jurisdiction), but to say that kids can't make decisions for themselves is ludicrous. Perhaps not all *legal* decisions (they can't sign contracts, etc.) but they can make *other* decisions.### Human: >So how can you say that it is exploitative to have a girl scout cookie program?
I don't believe you can, I just don't believe "the little girls say that they want it" is a good basis for saying something isn't exploitative.### Assistant: I'm not saying that-- I'm just saying you can't say conclusively that it is *against* their will either. And my other point is that it's not really coercive in any other respect either because it's an optional activity *for parents.* And selling the cookies within girl scouts is *also* optional.### Human: > I'm not saying that-- I'm just saying you can't say conclusively that it is against their will either.
And you can believe that, but you haven't said anything to back it up since your primary point (that how the little girls feel about it matters) was invalid. |
### Human: I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do. CMV### Assistant: Consider Moore's law. Consider that in 5 years it would not be unrealistic that those camera feeds are streamed in real time to a server and fed through facial recognition. Now, every time a cop sees you, your face is recognized by the camera, and a date, time and location is logged.
This already happens to some degree. License plate reading cameras on cop cars, highways, tollways, etc. are increasingly being fed into 'databases' that indefinitely store when your car drove by. Perhaps this doesn't seem like a big deal, but realize that nowadays it is not unreasonable to assume that the government can figure out your location in a matter of seconds and get a vector on your direction of travel in about the same time.
Now, why should you care? You haven't done anything wrong. Well, sure. But consider if another J. Edgar Hoover takes control of the FBI. Imagine how he could bully people with this kind of technology. The guy had dirt on everyone before the internet was a thing.
I'm not saying there aren't advantages to having cops wear cameras. I just don't think it should be necessary. Plus its a bit too George Orwell for me.
Not to mention that if cops need to wear cameras to keep them honest, maybe there is a problem with the police department itself?
Edit: J. Edgar Hoover, not Edgar J. Hoover.### Human: This is a viewpoint that never occurred to me. Interesting. Not the "maybe there is a problem with the police department" part...that's a given. But, honestly, never crossed my mind that their cameras would be abused over time. Which is weird, because I'm usually aware of that shit.### Assistant: Cameras being abused is mainly a smokescreen, because there really isn't any good transparency measure other than always on cameras for law enforcement.
There are ways to implement both policy and the technology so that it cannot be misused.### Human: Oh I'm still a big supporter of the cop cams, it's just an issue I wasn't taking into consideration. Policies, yes. Still, we should know by now the government or other parties with negative intentions will find their way around the system.### Assistant: There aren't any ways to corrupt an 'always on system' if we implement it the right way. For instance, we could nuance existing statutes regarding when an officer is and isn't on the clock to include that they cannot legally perform their duties without cameras running, to defeat the get around of 'malfunctions' and 'missing tape.'
Regardless of however it does become implemented, there's no point in admitting defeat before you've even started.
If always on lapel cameras are the best way to fight corruption, then there's no reason to not fight to have it implemented the best way we can.### Human: I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, what I'm talking about isn't police abuse of the cameras, rather a database being built of video and images. One that can be linked to the already existent massive surveillance system in place.
>then there's no reason to not fight to have it implemented the best way we can.
Like I said I still support the cop cameras, it's just something to be aware of.### Assistant: There's nothing that says a new database of videos has to be:
>linked to the 'already existent' massive surveillance system
That's what I'm getting at. |
### Human: CMV: High Schools need to start later### Assistant: Starting the school day later won't necessarily cause students to get more sleep. They'll just stay up later. A student who wishes to get enough sleep can plan to go to bed earlier. Its called time management and prioritizing, which is a useful skill to learn before leaving high school.
The difference between middle school and high school start times likely has to do with school bus schedules. Bussing all students in the district at the same time would require far more buses and drivers, becoming inefficient.
I'm not sure where you are, but it's midnight here. Perhaps if you were in bed now instead of on reddit you wouldn't struggle so much tomorrow morning? :)### Human: I live in Germany and have never experienced the obligation for parents to drop of their children here. Sure it is nice and I enjoyed this service a lot my self but there were also students in my class who came tho school on there own since the first year - on foot, by bike or with public transportation services.
I also think that schools should start at 9 or later. In addition to the OP's arguments my main reason is that some things just only happen in the evening. Like for example dinner with family and sometimes friends and during dinner interesting talks and discussions.
Maybe one could at least experiment with later times; observe how the students spend their extra night time and try different methods of explaining and incentives.### Assistant: > Sure it is nice and I enjoyed this service a lot my self but there were also students in my class who came tho school on there own since the first year - on foot, by bike or with public transportation services.
The vast majority of places in the US have horrid public transit. Like, super bad. And depending on where you live it's impractical to bike or walk to school (for example, while I walked to middle and elementary school (both were within a mile for me) but my high school was at least 5 miles away. That would take more than an hour to walk to. There was no public transit that took less than an hour either. Finally, I couldn't really bike because I played trombone and well, having a trombone on a bike is rather difficult although it can be done (not to mention there's a good portion of the year where biking would be rather hazardous with ice).
Now, the solution to this was school buses. And I took the bus. However, I learned they recently got cut due to funding issues in my old school district.
Soooo... yeah. Kinda up a crick without a paddle.### Human: A lot of people in US cities or outside the country don't know this, but a large part of the country is wilderness and empty space. My high school was also a couple miles away, and I was probably was one of the students that lived the closest to it. There aren't any taxis or public transit, and the roads aren't exactly friendly for biking (nor is it efficient for some people). School buses and parents dropping us off was the only feasible way to get to school.### Assistant: I didn't even grow up in the country. I grew up smack dab in the middle of metro Detroit.
But yes - those who live in more rural areas (such as where I live now) have no public transit options opposed to just immensely inconvenient ones. |
### Human: CMV: Everyone has the right to strike no matter who he is employed by.### Assistant: While I would agree with you that everyone has the right to strike, an employer has the right to fire people if they refuse to work, and try to find other competent employees.
Employment is an entirely voluntary enterprise. Force should not be used on either side, but rather negotiation.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Employment *with this particular employer* is an entirely voluntary enterprise. If there is only one employer in town, then it's a fucked up town and you should probably leave. This thread is made in the context of the US, and despite the occasional reddit circlejerk the US objectively has many employers so it remains an entirely voluntary enterprise.### Human: What if you, say, work at the airport?### Assistant: ah, the air traffic controllers. Well, since big brother told the airports they can't use the air traffic controllers, then all of the old controllers in the union have no job in that field. They will have to find a new job in another field, one where, hopefully, the government is less likely to come down on them so harshly if their agency/union wants to play hardball again. The biggest gang on the block told them to get back to work because they had places to be, they said no, and they were punished far outside the bounds of the free market since that gang has the monopoly on force (no airport was going to go against them).### Human: The logical conclusion is that no one will ever be an air traffic controller. Is that right?### Assistant: No, there will be people willing to be air traffic controllers, just not the ones that would be willing to unionize and sell their labor in big chunks in an attempt to get better deals. |
### Human: CMV: I don't think saying "black people are fast" is a racist statement against African Americans.### Assistant: It seems like your actual view (going off [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4rj8tl/cmv_i_dont_think_saying_black_people_are_fast_is/d51jd7c)\) is that you don't think it's offensive. You admit it was racist, but you don't think people should be offended by "positive" stereotypes.
What makes racism and, more generally, stereotyping offensive to people is not just the assignment of negative qualities and characteristics, it's also the generalization and the removal of individuality. Most people prefer not to be defined by and judged based upon the actions of their peers. They prefer instead to be judged as an individual, with all the complexity and nuance that entails. A statement such as "all black people are fast" takes away the individual accomplishments and characteristics of any given black person and simply assigns them a category which, though objectively positive, disregards their sense of self.### Human: It also has a tendency to delude any actual accomplishments in an area that one race already has a perceived advantage in, e.g. "Of course he won the race, he's black." Nevermind that he also trained his entire life, worked hard to improve himself, ate the right diet, etc. His (or her) entire accomplishment is diminished to simply a racial trait.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: Even if genetics **did** play a role, dismissing achievements as being entirely due to racial attributes and not to all of the other hard work that goes into achieving them is insulting. Nobody wins the Olympics, for example, just because they were born black (or any other race)### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [deleted] |
### Human: CMV: Even if they were real, Hoverboards aren't that cool.### Assistant: Surf boards rely on a lots less friction than skateboards and are still pretty cool.
All boards require maintenance, either waxing snowboards or adjusting the bearings on skateboards.### Human: Yeah, but you can, you know, actually *turn* with a surf board. Hover boards can't even do that.### Assistant: Why can't hover boards turn?### Human: There's nothing to turn them. Hover boards have zero friction. You have to have *some* friction to turn. Surf boards may have less than a skate board per your assertion, but hover boards have much much less than even a surf board would.
The only way to turn a hover board would be wings/ailerons or attitude thrusters.
A hover board as presented in Back to the Future 2 would not have enough speed to turn with a wing, and attitude thrusters would be nearly impossible to actually control with just feet.
Although, maybe Griff's bionics had a bluetooth-like connection to the board?### Assistant: If something was hovering then it would be exerting a force, why could that force not change direction?### Human: exactly. i've always pictured the ideal hoverboard as exerting force like a helicopter. lean forward a bit and you use some downward thrust for forward movement.
turning would be a little awkward. you could strafe side-toside as easy as forward and back, but you couldn't rotate on the vertical axis very well. either the board would have to electronically modulate the thrust (angle the thrust more on the rear half of the board) or the board could be a little flexible, like a snowboard. then you could modulate the thrust angles yourself.
hell, twist the board just right and you could spin frictionless 360s.### Assistant: What about using gyroscopes? |
### Human: CMV: I believe people who move to america should learn how to speak english.### Assistant: You wrongly assume that immigrants who don't speak English aren't actively trying to learn English. It takes *years* to learn English, which is a ridiculously complicated language with an exception for every rule and an exception for every exception.
If you have ever traveled abroad or studied a foreign language intensively, you should be able to empathize with the difficulties and frustrations many immigrants face when coming here when they don't speak the language. If you have never traveled abroad or studied a foreign language intensively, then you're really in no position to judge.
On top of that, the older you get, the harder it is to learn a foreign language. It's probably not that your peers' parents "don't want to learn," it's that learning a foreign language while raising kids and working a job is incredibly difficult.
Besides, the immigrants who do come here and don't speak English and don't attempt to learn (they are in the minority) most likely aren't harming anyone. Live and let live. When you deal with customers who don't speak English, you have no idea what their background is, why they're here, or what they're doing in this country. So don't judge them unless they're actually being an asshole to you.### Human: As a person who speaks three languages (English, Spanish, and German) I don't consider English anymore difficult than any other language. And while yes, I agree fluency in any language is difficult, if you've lived in a country that only speaks one language, it's not that hard to become at least functional with day to day speech. If you decide you're going to settle down in a country that speaks English, you should be able to gain a simple understanding of the language so you can do things like order at restaurants and buy things at shops. Expecting a person to learn that functionality in a week is ignorant, expecting it in a year is fair.### Assistant: For my curiosity: at what age did you learn those various languages?### Human: English is my native language. Spanish I learned a very simplistic understanding (colors, numbers etc) in middle school, then I learned Spanish to near fluency in high school to the point where I could write essays and read books entirely in Spanish. And German I started in college just for something new. I realize there is a difference between me and an older couple without formal teaching but in my experience, immersion was the easiest way to learn. Between my soohmore and junior year, I went to Costa Rica for two months and spoke only Spanish, I went from very shaky three tense Spanish, to thinking and dreaming in Spanish in two months. While learning a language takes time, if you're immersed in it, you'll catch on quickly.### Assistant: Thanks. That's about what I expected. The problem I see is that, though you speak English fluently, you never really did learn English, which makes it difficult to make any subject assertions about learning it.### Human: But I have friends from Germany and Spain who also speak a variety of languages and they generally said English had about the same difficulty for them as other non native languages. I think English is often given a bad rap for it's difficulty when it's not really. Spanish for example has less tenses than English (14 compared to 26) but most verbs in English remain the same four or five congugations throughout every tense while Spanish has upwards of fourty ways to say each verb.### Assistant: Point taken. What makes this all so the more complicated is that English would be easier to learn if you already know another west Germanic language, such as German. Altogether, I don't think I have the tools right now to solve this problem.### Human: I'm not trying to say that there is an easy, fix all solution to the problem, I'm just trying to make the point that everyone who lives in the United States should speak English so they can correspond with people and make not only their lives easier, but everyone else's as well.### Assistant: Maybe the whole world should learn Esperanto, which would solve this problem world-wide.### Human: Well almost the whole world speaks English anyway. Why don't we finish the job.### Assistant: You're sorely stretching what counts as 'almost'. Considering how widely spoken Spanish is, maybe the rest of us in the US ought to learn Spanish.### Human: If the vast majority of people in the United States speak English, why should we change for a handful of immigrants who want to be here? As far as I'm concerned if you want to move to a country, it should be your responsibility to learn the customs and other required knowledge to assimilate into the culture. It makes no sense for an entire nation of people to learn a language so they can talk to a very small minority who wish to gain all of the amenities of living in the US but refuse to learn the language spoken here either due to an educational limitation or just plain refusal. The minority should have the duty of assimilating into the country they want to live in. For example, say I want to move from the US to England. Should I continue driving on the right side of the road because that's all anyone does in America? I mean I don't want to buy a new car and not learning how to drive on the left side suits me better because it's easier so should I drive into oncoming traffic? Of course not. I should learn the customs and other parts of societal life required to live in a place, just like everyone who wants to move here should.### Assistant: Oooh, you brought cultural assimilation into this! This just got exciting!
There are two ways I can think about a mandate to immigrants to the US to learn English. The first is for the purpose of communication, the second is for the purpose of cultural assimilation. I see a couple of assumptions for both that I think are unfounded.
On communication:
* This argument assumes that there is presently a failure of communication, because why would you legislate solutions to problems that don't exist? Can you argue that there is a failure of communication between immigrants and residents *whose consequences are dire enough to warrant correction by legal requirement*? Failure of immigrants to communicate with law enforcement is one potential problem that appears valid. Failure of immigrants to communicate to meet their own basic needs in another that doesn't appear to be a valid problem.
* This argument assumes that the problem will persist without legal intervention. I see no rational reason the accept this assumption. Children of immigrants speak English, so the problem is perpetually contained to a subset of first generation immigrants alone. We've never done this before in our country's 200+ year history, so what's changed?
* This argument assumes that the benefits of learning English are insufficient incentives, thus making a legal requirement reasonable. This doesn't make sense to me, because plenty of immigrants do learn english, or at least enough to get by, which is all that's required by this argument.
On cultural assimilation.
First off, shame on you. The side of the road you drive on isn't a 'cultural custom' any more than the shape of the prongs on the electrical socket. If you're going to talk about cultural customs, you should at least know what one is.
* This argument assumes that the US has a monolithic culture to which immigrants can assimilate. This is obviously false.
* This argument assumes that immigrants don't already have US culture. Since the culture of a country is the sum of the cultures of its people, this argument has the corollary that immigrants aren't American. Again obviously false, especially so in a country of immigrants.
* This argument assumes that cultural assimilation won't happen on its own. Demonstrably false. Ben Franklin was worried about immigrants too. German immigrants. Look at us speaking deutch to each other in our lederhosen.
On the practical side of things, how would we go about this requirement. Are we seriously expecting immigrants, who are among the most financially insecure residents, to put in reduced hours at work to have the time, and to pay for their own English lessons? Is the government going to pay for them? Are we going to compensate for lost work? How are we going to measure whether they've met the requirement? A literacy test? We've had those for some functions of citizenship (voting) and that was ruled unconstitutional. What makes this one constitutional?### Human: I think you are misunderstanding what I said. Under no circumstances did I say this problem cannot fix itself, nor did I say that legislation would be needed to fix it. You also seem to think that Americans have no culture of their own? How does that make sense? There are plenty of things that come from America and nowhere else. I find it odd that you do not seem to think that almost 250 years is long enough for a country to develop a certain culture. Language is a part of American culture. We speak a different English than anyone else in the world, and in order for an immigrant to communicate, they need a basic understanding of this language. That does not mean they need to sit in classes all the time to learn it, but if your kids already know it, instead of asking your kids "what does this mean" ask "can you teach me HOW to read this" sure that wouldn't be feasible with a kid who is six, but at sixteen, I would venture to guess, these kids have the intelligence to at least attempt to explain it to their parents.### Assistant: It seems I did misunderstand. But now I'm a little bit more confused. If we both agree that 'cultural assimilation' (which, by the way, is a depreciated term. These days the word is syncretism, because syncretism at least acknowledges that assimilation is a two-way street) is going to happen on its own, then what use is arguing whether it should be done or not? You seem to think that immigrants should make a conscious effort to do so, even though they do it already. Like I said, confusing.
As for American culture. I was making a joke when I mentioned lederhosen. I said that American culture is the sum of the cultures of its people. Unless you think Americans have no culture, the corollary is that America has culture.### Human: I think there are plenty of immigrants are trying and have learned English. However there are plenty who haven't and I don't think it's okay and that was essentially the point of my argument: that it is not acceptable for immigrants to avoid learning the language of the nation they want to move to. |
### Human: I think that Americans are totally disillusioned about the importance of their individuality and the concept of "freedom". CMV.### Assistant: I'm a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian because "taxes are theft" or similar. It's really much more that the government doesn't know enough about people to try to manage their lives. We are individuals with different needs, different dreams, and different goals. Government has to assume similarity, to try to appeal to the "average" person. This is what economist F.A. Hayek referred to as [the pretense of knowledge](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html).
Additionally, I clearly have the incentive to help myself, as does everyone for themselves. But government politicians and bureaucrats are doing what's best for their jobs, not what's in the best interest of their constituents. And why should they, when the alternatives are so much easier. When their looking at, say, airline regulations, the airlines care a lot about the regulations and lobby heavily. Even regular airline passengers can't spend too much money or time on this, let alone the average passenger. As such, government regulations will serve to protect the existing airlines at the expense of competitors, often harming consumers. And so on and so forth through every industry.
I recognize the value of government in defending personal and property rights from private individuals or groups who would try to use force to take them. But overall IMO, bottom-up distributed decision-making leads to better results than top-down centralized decision making that the government creates. As a result, I basically oppose almost all government action, as I believe it will make aggregate human happiness less than had government done nothing.### Human: Do you advocate the unionization of the workforce, as part of the "bottom-up" decision making process you described? Or are unions considered collectivism to the libertarian, and therefore something to be avoided?
I think I could sympathize with the idea of a "bottom-up" structure of society if there was true organization - a union of individuals as a core workforce, who are organized, make democratic decisions, and hold power. But that's beginning to sound a bit like communism, surely. Doesn't the bottom-up approach fly in the face of the libertarian's individualism?### Assistant: If workers believe that banding together en mass and saying "we quit unless you pay us more" is in their best interest, I certainly support them having the freedom to do so. More power to them. If the employer is paying below the market value of their labor, this tactic will probably succeed, which I would see as a good thing.
However, if you would take it further and have government give unions the power to place restrictions on agreements between and employers and workers who don't join the union, then I don't support that.
I don't support the union laws in place in many US states, but I also don't support so-called "right to work" laws, which also limit voluntary agreements between employee and employer.### Human: >I don't support the union laws in place in many US states, but
I know that's the Libertarian position, but I think these laws came about because in the 1800's the clashes between unions and strikebreakers became quite bloody and violent.
So, rather than calling in the National Guard all the time and having the streets run red with blood, we recognized that it would be better if we put a process in place.
I recognize that if you're Monty Burns this seems like an assault on your freedom, but then again your vast wealth and power already puts you in an advantageous position vs. labor.### Assistant: > I know that's the Libertarian position, but I think these laws came about because in the 1800's the clashes between unions and strikebreakers became quite bloody and violent.
Government IMO has a role in protecting personal and property rights. It seems in this case the problem is the lack of them being enforced.
> I recognize that if you're Monty Burns this seems like an assault on your freedom, but then again your vast wealth and power already puts you in an advantageous position vs. labor.
The economy is not zero-sum. The goal is to increase societal wealth by promoting voluntary exchanges, since are positive-sum as both sides value what they are getting more than they are giving up. |
### Human: CMV: Guns are good in the US, and bad in the UK.### Assistant: Guns are the method for the majority of suicides. For men and soldiers this is even more true.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide
Guns are also the method for the majority of homicides
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
Guns are an order of magnitude risk factor for both suicide and being a homicide victim
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide
The rhetoric is that guns save lives. The data simply does not support that assertion. I'm not saying any one policy would solve this problem, only that gun culture may be part of the problem and should be willing to entertain that possibility.
Guns don't make people do things, it just makes it magnifies their ability for them to harm themselves and others. More veterans are killing themselves today with guns than we have soldiers dying on the battlefield. That's a crisis to me.
http://www.pbs.org/coming-back-with-wes-moore/about/facts/
There is a direct correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates. Every 1% increase in gun ownership is linked to 0.5% to 0.9% more suicides.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html
"The scientific study of suicide has partly been an effort to erase myths. Perhaps the biggest fallacy is that suicides are typically long-planned deeds. While this can be true—people who attempt suicide often face a cascade of problems—empirical evidence suggests that they act in a moment of brief but heightened vulnerability.....
This impulsivity was underscored in a 2001 study in Houston of people ages 13 to 34 who had survived a near-lethal suicide attempt. Asked how much time had passed between when they decided to take their lives and when they actually made the attempt, a startling 24 percent said less than 5 minutes; 48 percent said less than 20 minutes; 70 percent said less than one hour; and 86 percent said less than eight hours. The episodic nature of suicidal feelings is also borne out in the aftermath: 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive do not go on to die by suicide later. As Miller puts it, “If you save a life in the short run, you likely save a life in the long run.” "
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/
“Not only do guns not protect people from having strangers kill them but having those guns around puts them at greater risk for being killed in a situation with someone that they do know,” said study co-author Dr. Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at the BU School of Public Health.
The new study found that, for each one-percentage point increase in state-level gun ownership, the state’s non-stranger homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, with firearm homicides increasing by 1.4 percent."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/10/02/states-with-most-gun-owners-have-more-non-stranger-homicides/jchurmrZWaM9FaUBAozoeK/story.html### Human: Wrong. Look at France's suicide rate per capita against ours. Theirs is higher.### Assistant: It is possible for multiple risk factors to exist. Non-stranger homicide and suicide and guns are highly correlated when looking at State data. Obviously there are going to be additional factors when comparing countries and any sane comparison will have to adjust for these.
Tl;Dr; Comparing rates between apples and oranges makes statistics a sad panda.### Human: Hangings in Australia after their draconian gun control laws went into effect rose at the rates gun suicides fell:
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract
Meaning, guns are a tool. Removing them will NOT cause suicide to drop directly.### Assistant: Draconian? Really? Did they impale people on spikes if they didn't give up their guns? You can't have a serious discussion with hyperbole like that.### Human: [deleted] |
### Human: I believe women are more valued than men in western society. CMV!### Assistant: The best way I heard someone put this was: "So you think women have it better just because you want to fuck them?"
Most of your points boil down to "women are sexually desirable to men, therefore women have it better." And if you think about it, this is only really an issue in a context where men happen to have the majority of the power. Women are generally attracted to men, too. Why is the converse not true? If you're an attractive man, don't you have just as much power over women? And what about unattractive women? Do you think between a man and a woman of equal physical attractiveness, the woman has more opportunities and faces less discrimination?
Men today typically get paid more; occupy more positions of power; are catered to by default in society. In just about every measure that matters I can think of, men do better than women (I guess women have it slightly better when it comes to LGBT issues, but that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head). Women aren't seen as "sexually desirable" because society values women more than men; women are seen as sexually desirable because straight men have most of the power, and straight men desire women, and therefore women are seen more sexually because that's what straight men want. That's where the idea of objectification comes from.
The best counterexample to this is, as I mentioned, an ugly woman. How many ugly women do you see in media? How are they depicted? Are they "valued" in the same way you think attractive women are valued? How do you treat a lack of physical attractiveness in a woman as opposed to a man?### Human: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAAB1Bvl9Mg### Assistant: Except that most women already work, because it's not 1950 anymore, and being unattractive and a woman is just going to count twice in terms of discrimination.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Sure? That doesn't really change anything. The very term "trophy wife" kind of points to the problems there- the woman is being seen as a commodity for a man. The woman may be well taken care of and enjoy a comfortable life. So does her husband's German shepherd. If her husband is powerful or wealthy, the wife may be able to leverage that power secondhand. The problem is that it's secondhand and dependent on the husband. I don't see how this makes women more "valued" overall, except in the worst way of being valued as a possession.### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: I'm saying that getting someone else to take care of doesn't count as giving you power. Can you not see the point I'm making? You can be valued, and yet still powerless. |
### Human: CMV: Sitting during the national anthem in protest is not disrespectful towards the troops.### Assistant: This is an issue that I really only see in USA. Your nation has some odd ideas about what things are.
A flag is a flag. An anthem is an anthem. The troops are the troops. A country is a country. Freedom is freedom.
Sure, these things are all interconnected and can be said to be somewhat representative of one another.
But as soon as you start allowing people to connect the dots between these things in any way they choose fit, you open the door to some of the most absurd hyperbole.
Spitting on the flag isn't the same thing as spitting on the troops.
Refusing to sing the national anthem isn't the same thing as refusing to espouse the democratic principles of the country.
The flag and anthem are just symbolic objects. American soldiers fought in wars to defend the lives of those they love, and a society they are proud of. They did NOT go to war for the flag, the anthem or any symbol.### Human: However as you said, standing up for the national anthem is symbolic. It is like a handshake. Shaking a hand someone is extending towards you means something, like you being friendly. Ignoring the hand is rude.
The same goes for this situation. Standing up is representative of respecting the country and the troops, thus not standing up is considred rude and disrespectful.### Assistant: > The same goes for this situation. Standing up is representative of respecting the country and the troops, thus not standing up is considred rude and disrespectful.
But I see no reason to conflate the troops with the country here. I can respect the troops but not respect the country. I can support our armed forces without tacitly supporting the wars my country fights.
Conflating country with troops leads to situations like this. Where a dude is disrespecting "the troops" by protesting something about his country. Where does this stop? Is any statement that could be said to be "anti-American" also "anti-troops"?
I agree that standing during the national anthem is symbolic, I disagree with what you posit it symbolizes. And frankly, if your way of showing support for the troops is briefly setting your beer down, taking off your hat, and standing up for a minute and a half then that says a lot about who you are as a person.### Human: >"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
.
>I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The thing is that the troops are representatives of the country and are bound by oath to it. They are one and the same. The flag and the anthem represent the lives of those they love and the society they are proud of.### Assistant: I don't understand how what you're saying means that by not "respecting" the national anthem you are de facto disrespecting the troops.### Human: The national anthem is symbolic of all of America, especially our military |
### Human: CMV: The debate on whether or not to keep Woodrow Wilson name on the school of public and international affairs is a great example of regressive liberalism.### Assistant: Your view posits that renaming or stripping the names off of buildings is erasing our history and therefore wrong. But that's clearly not the case.
Every single person, great and small, have done things that are good and things that are bad. For some people, the good outweighs the bad. For others, the bad outweighs the good. But all of us fall somewhere on the continuum.
The question here is...where along the continuum do we stop honoring people?
I think we could all agree that having a school named after Nathan Bedford Forrest (as there was in Jacksonville until 2014) or after William Saunders (like there was at UNC until pretty recently iirc), who were both leaders and creators of the KKK, isn't ok. Naming one after MLK, despite his adultery, probably is ok.
So if we agree that some people just shouldn't have things named after them, this becomes an argument of degree. How bad does someone need to be to have their name removed?
For you, Wilson might not cross that threshold. For others, he does.
*But this being Wilson in particular is irrelevant to your view*.
Because *some* buildings named after some people should be changed, it's clearly ok to sometimes do, and isn't "erasing our history instead of learning from it, makes our actions no better than that of ISIS".### Human: Hm, I'm not sure if I buy that.
If we agree that some people just shouldn't have things named after them based on our judgement of them (i.e. our present morality), then I see why this would turn into an argument of degree.
However, OP originally presented a different argument. He wrote that we should not apply our current moral judgement to events of the past.
Under this logic, it is irrelevant what I, you, OP, or indeed anybody alive today thinks of Woodrow Wilson. What matters is that he was praised at the time when the school was named after him. Taking his name away solely because the mainstream moral standpoint of his actions shifted over time would constitute an application of contemporary moral judgement to events of the past - something OP specifically cautioned against. While I don't have a problem with moralising about events of the past (after all, some events of the past were awful and we should remind ourselves of that), removing statues and names of statesmen for the **sole** reason that what they did is perceived differently today than it was a few years ago is going too far.
For this reason, I remain convinced that the Woodrow Wilson name should remain.### Assistant: The argument is that it is not erasing history and therefore the main impetus behind OPs argument doesn't hold. Do you remain unconvinced that history *isn't* been erased here or do you have another reason for your argument that OP didn't mention? Why is it going too far?### Human: An argument could be made that if an institutions predecessor's felt inclined to name a building after someone that they felt a certain amount of gratitude towards that person. I think it would be fair to say that those who originally named the building would be against changing the name, and thus by changing an institutions name you are also destroying a part of their legacy.
I can understand why certain people would want to put an end to a legacy but I think it's also important to acknowledge what they're doing.
They're not erasing Woodrow Wilson from history but they are making an effort to remove their predecessors intentions from public scrutiny.### Assistant: Yes, an argument like that can be made. That's why I tried to probe for one. My problem is that you both seem to see the matter as self-evident and don't bother to argue the point. So please, I want to understand: Why is it harmful to remove the name when *we* don't feel that they are deserving of that honor? How does it matter what dead people think of it, if we don't agree with their choice of who to honor?
For reference, I live in Germany where we still have streets and institutions named after prominent Nazis and whenever someone tries to change them, this exact same discussion is bound to happen. And I'm still not clear what the rationale behind the opposition is. That's why I'm so insistent on hearing the justification.### Human: >And I'm still not clear what the rationale behind the opposition is.
I'm honestly not super confident in my own beliefs in this debate. It's definitely something that changes depending on the scenario- I definitely wouldn't argue against renaming a street named after a Nazi. However, I think when it comes down to it, even if the person being honored is an ass I think it's important to remember that we used to honor that ass. Maybe an easy way to fix this is to have some other way to make it public that this institution was originally named after this person? Create a plaque or something, place it somewhere in the building and then change the name of institution?
What came to your mind when you read this post was the Nazi's still honored via street name and institutions, what came to my mind was a statue at a nearby college commemorating all of the college students who fought and died in the confederate army during the civil war. There's currently a big push from the 'Black Lives Matter' movement to have the statue removed, effectively saying that anyone who fought in the losing side of this war shouldn't be remembered or honored in public. Personally, I feel like when you start tearing down memorials you're moving away from 'what these people did was wrong' and turning into 'history doesn't remember losers'. It's not a scenario completely identical to OP's example but it's stemming from the same growing movement to stamp out any ideological opposition to the current liberal mind set for the sake of...I'm not really sure what. Peace of mind? Spitting on a jerks grave? The assurance that people don't mistake supporting racism as a way to get building named after you? If you're concerned about working in a building named after a racist would changing the name of the building really make you feel any better? You're still standing on a foundation laid by racists, still surrounded by walls payed for by racists.
Ultimately, who gets remembered comes down to public opinion and we may one day see Martin Luther King's name stripped away due to new moral standards- and that's honestly not the worst thing. The current generation will always decide who gets remembered and for what- this is nothing new. I just hope that in remembering all the evil people have done we don't also forget the good they accomplished, because it's rare to find someone who doesn't have a little bit of both.### Assistant: I understand your point that Wilsons contributions may outweigh the vices of being a racist in that time. I don't have read up enough on what exactly he's guilty of, so I won't pick a side on this matter. I still can sympathize with the activists, since I see parallels to the cases here in Germany. But I can see, how others may not see it that way and be fine with keeping the name. (That's more than I can say for the people endorsing known Nazi apologists...)
But I feel that there is a long way between taking the name off of one What Wilson contributed to his times will still be taught in history classes (at least I hope this is the case... \^\^'), whether we rename the institute or not. So if you are arguing that we lose the memories of the historic person, if we take down the name, then I can't follow you there. We remember the person for their actions, not for the street that is named after them. |
### Human: CMV: The legal drinking policies in the United States need to be reconsidered.### Assistant: I am by no means an expert on drinking laws and so on but I ran across one point here I think is clearly wrong.
> The 21 year-old drinking age ties the hands of parent and places them in an untenable position. They must either ignore the reality of alcohol consumption among young people and forbid their children from drinking or break the law by serving alcohol to their under-21 children.
There's a middle ground and the government doesn't really make a difference - the laws can't reasonably enforced anywhere near as often as a young adult is at a social event around alcohol and no one is going to stop them unless things get seriously out of hand.
The parents can encourage a ~21yo to be cautious, drink responsibly, etc. They also don't have to serve alcohol to their under-21 children(what?). The parents, more importantly probably, should also be role models for this. Some kids may not listen but I don't think the law will make a substantial difference.
___
I also think it can be argued that due to the social aspect of school-age drinking, it's wise to set the age a bit higher. When 18 year olds can buy alcohol, it raises the likelihood that 16, 17yo will have access to it in an environment with peer pressures toward irresponsible drinking. A 21yo will be much less likely to be around people younger than 18.### Human: For clarification, I am not necessarily advocating for the drinking age to be 18, I just believe it should be reconsidered. Perhaps 19 would be a better compromise for the purpose of removing alcohol from the high school-age scene.
I agree, perhaps there is some middle ground for parents, there's definitely parents out there that have figured it out since 1984. However, I have to disagree with your point to raise the drinking age. The drinking age is 21 currently, and it's proven that since the drinking age was raised it induced the current binge drinking culture. The binge drinking is the example 15, 16 and 17 year olds look up to. Many teens and young adults say that a good portion of the thrill of drinking is sourced from the desire and act of doing something they're not suppose to be doing. The more off-limits drinking becomes to younger people, the more dangerous it will become. The drinking age is 21 and kids are still drinking at that young age, lowering the age will not alter that.
In conclusion, if someone in this country is considered too irresponsible to consume or purchase liquor, then they shouldn't be considered responsible enough to drive, vote, enlist in the army, and be expected to pay taxes, etc.. Drinking is not stated as a privilege, it's stated as a right once one achieves a certain age. If the law requires an 18-year-old an adult then they should have access to every adult-given right at that time, otherwise, the ability to drink should be made a privilege (just like obtaining a driver's license) and not a right.### Assistant: > it's proven that since the drinking age was raised it induced the current binge drinking culture.
Is it really proven? Seems it could be easily a correlation and not a causation, since more people end up going to college now. I really can't see how lowering the age to 19 would reduce college drinking.
> Many teens and young adults say that a good portion of the thrill of drinking is sourced from the desire and act of doing something they're not suppose to be doing.
This seems like a larger argument for legalization of drugs in general. There may be some truth to it but I don't feel it's a good argument on its own because there are plenty of things that might be more thrill inducing because they're illegal but there's no way we'd consider legalizing them for many good reasons.
> if someone in this country is considered too irresponsible to consume or purchase liquor, then they shouldn't be considered responsible enough to drive, vote, enlist in the army, and be expected to pay taxes, etc..
Liquor impairs you and reduces inhibition, it's not just the decision to drink that's concerning, it's the decisions people make after drinking. Driving, voting, military service, etc. aren't comparable.
> If the law requires an 18-year-old an adult then they should have access to every adult-given right at that time
I don't agree, the way people age is not that simple. An 18 year old still has some maturation to go, but there are some things that are useful or important for them to get involved in - drinking is not one of those things.
___
Granted, all the problems an 18 year old might have with drinking I can see in some older people as well, I wouldn't dare claim that there's a magical age where people become responsible enough. But a line has to be drawn somewhere for practical application and 21 just seems like a decent number for it all things considered.### Human: I agree with you in the sense that there isn't a "magical age". Age is just a number and by no means should be a measure of responsibility and/or maturity. But if you feel as if 21 is a decent number for practical application, than either everything should raised to that age, or people should have to apply for a license to drink and participate in alcoholic education in a similar procedure as receiving a driver's license.### Assistant: I thought one reason they kept the 21 drinking age around in America is because alcohol has much more damaging effects the younger you drink it. Also I am Australian and we have the drinking age at 18, but we have pretty terrible binge drinking too.### Human: It had more to do with teenage drunk driving. The whole brain development issue helped the case, but was not the main argument for the 21 limit. |
### Human: CMV: easy access to guns in the US is a bell that can't be unrung due to the 300+ million privately owned guns floating around### Assistant: Well, what if that pistol that cost $200 at Walmart suddenly [cost $15k on the Black Market?](http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/black-market-guns-triple-in-price-20141013-115f08.html) Suddenly the kind of crimes you're dealing with are much different. You're not dealing with idiots accidentally shooting themselves, suicides, or domestic arguments, or most of the common crazy's that go out and buy a gun or steal them from their family to shoot up a school. All that's left are organised criminals who end up sharing a few guns and using them mostly for show because they know they'll be tried much harder if caught with them.### Human: > All that's left are organised criminals who end up sharing a few guns
But how do we get to that point? What happens to the 300 million guns? The $15,000 gun article you linked is from Australia. According to the wiki article above, Australia has 15 guns per 100 people. The US has 88.### Assistant: Just because it would take longer to do doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
People love to fall into this "all-or-nothing" fallacy where if we can't have the problem solved in a weekend it isn't even worth talking about. Even in Australia it wasn't overnight, and it took a lot of fighting from the *conservative* politicians against a lot of their electorate to get the laws needed passed, but their country is now much better off for it and over time people have come to recognise that it was the best choice for society.### Human: http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia
except the the majority of australians supported the gun laws, that isn't true in the united states.
"Ultimately, heated debate over a proposed reversal of the laws hardened into a stalemate, with a nationwide referendum emerging as the only tool to break the deadlock. But it never happened. Both sides, Howard said, knew that laws would be supported by a majority. The reforms were eventually enacted without incident in each of the six Australian states."
It's not all or nothing, but the reality isn't that it would take longer, it's that it wouldn't work. Australia got rid of 650k guns using about 250million dollars, that wouldn't make statistically significant dent in the US. The gun laws took the guns from 17 guns per 100 to about 13 guns per 100. The US has 88 guns per 100 right now. Not to mention guns in Australia are near 15 per 100 today.### Assistant: [Actually, most of the country is in support of stricter gun laws.](http://goo.gl/a1uon9)### Human: "Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
45% support is far from most of the country
"In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
52% more strict with a +-3.
I wouldn't say most of the country supports stricter gun laws.### Assistant: **"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"**
93% support
**"Do you support or oppose laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns?"**
88% support
**"Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"**
88% favor
**"In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"**
52% more strict
**"How much do you think stricter gun laws would do to help prevent gun violence? Would stricter laws help a lot, some, not much, or not at all?"**
Alot + Some = 52%
**"A ban on assault-style weapons"**
57% support
**"Creating a federal government database to track all gun sales"**
70% support
___
If you actually read through all the polls, most of them are split into multiple categories of what you feel best, and in almost every poll more people are in favour of background checks, federal registration, disallowing the mentally ill, banning assault weapons, etc... more than any other category. Much of the country support at the very least stricter gun laws.
___
*Edit: Gotta love how engrained the gun addiction is in america that people are literally down-voting a comment simply for restating surveys. That blind confirmation bias "don't want to hear no gun control" even when the actual facts say most people want it. Nice.*### Human: those are small changes, some of which are already on the books and no where near the Australia gun law and wouldn't prevent any of the shootings that have occurred recently. In fact if those changes were made it would be easier for me to get a gun in my state.
I don't disagree with some of those changes either I just don't think it'll have the effect people are looking for in preventing gun violence### Assistant: The fact of the matter is that the NRA has become so extremist and has so much control of the government that we constantly hear the conservatives dismiss the constant mass shootings and defend gun rights saying that most of America prefers their second amendment rights to actual safety and gun control- which is a blatant lie.
We're a huge country, it's going to take baby steps, but the polls suggest that about 3/4 of the country at least are very receptive to the idea of having stricter gun control laws including background checks, including registering all firearms federally, including trying to prevent those who might commit these massacres from getting a hold of them. For a society that is so gun addicted, I think it speaks volumes that so many of us are willing to see these laws but at the congressional level and the gun nut lobbyist level we want to dismiss even talking about this as an issue.
And do you honestly think that if we were able to pass the laws suggested are widely supported in these polls that down the line people might not become more and more open to stricter gun laws as they prove themselves more or less effective? Baby steps.
This country loves to dig its heels, hates change, but in this case, we want more gun control, we're sick of mass shootings. Most of the country wants to at least do something and pass some laws. A majority of Americans want something to be done, that is the truth.### Human: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
The reality is that there are already a ton of gun laws in the United States, its not some free for all that some people want you to believe. Laws have been passed we are taking baby steps but for the results that we are looking for isn't feasible with the amount of unregistered guns already out there. Take a look at the CT assault rifle registration after Sandy Hook.
"In February 2014, the Hartford Courant reported that Connecticut had processed about 50,000 assault weapons certificates, but that anywhere from 50,000 to 350,000 remained unregistered. "And that means," wrote the Courant's Dan Haar, "as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws."[42] Frank Miniter wrote in an April 2014 Forbes op-ed "that more than 300,000 Connecticut residents decided not to register their 'assault weapons,' moved them out of state, or sold them."[43]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#State_actions
That number would be even greater nationwide, and how do you propose we go after these "criminals"### Assistant: So we're back to the all-or-nothing fallacy and the catch-22 situation of NRA politics.### Human: no we're not, because we're already not doing nothing, which is the whole point. You proposed things that we are already doing and its not working. The reality of the matter is that getting the results we want will require the repeal of the 2nd amendment and the right for the government to illegally search and seize all homes in the united states |
### Human: CMV: I think that severely retarded fetuses should be aborted.### Assistant: Is this "should" in an abstract moral sense, or in the sense that we should screen all fetuses before birth and impose mandatory abortions for the mentally-handicapped?### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: Personally, I'm in the camp that life > no life, with incredibly few exceptions. But I won't necessarily try to sell you that.
The biggest problem is that it seems like a lazy shortcut. Sure the retarded are less likely to have a "happy" life, but it's certainly not a guarantee. The outliers are hugely important here. Think of it like the death penalty: is it better to let 100 guilty men go free or kill one innocent man? How high does the certainty that the fetus will have a bad life need to be to justify the chance of depriving someone of an otherwise happy life?### Human: I see where you are coming from with your inmate analogy, but they are not entirely the same. While you are in a sense taking the life of both the possible fetus and innocent man, the fetus will not experience it; the innocent man will. It can also have a much larger shock wave(Family, friends, a life already obtained, etc...) if the innocent man is killed; thus requiring a much larger acceptance of a worse trade-off--the 100 guilty going free. You also have the flip side of that analogy where the 100 guilty inmates deserve it. The 100 possible unhappy fetuses do not deserve having to live that life.
You also have the rights of the potentially unborn to think about. Do the right of two humans who (possibly) have the ability to have another child later, or adopt, trump the rights of the unborn who they are gambling with. Do they have that right to gamble with another humans happiness based on their temporary needs?### Assistant: You either give the unborn rights or you don't. If you do, my argument just got a whole lot easier, because if a fetus has rights, you shouldn't be deciding if it lives or dies. How is killing the fetus a smaller infringement on its rights than letting it live its potentially good or bad life?
We wouldn't do that with living people: "We've decided for you that your life will not be worth living so you will be terminated."
Edit: I'm sorry but I really want do emphasize this point. There is no way that you can play off abortion as "respecting the fetus's rights".### Human: Simply put, there are things worse than death. Considering not bring born is different than death, I would argue it's less as bad as death that's less than some alternatives.
And no, i's not as black and white as rights or no rights. Rights are always taken, limited and void for everyone at some point in their lives.
As far as the infringing of rights by taking or giving life, I may be placing the rights on the wrong side. It may need to be described as parents should not have the right to decided if a potential human's life will be detrimental or not because they could be bias.### Assistant: I disagree with your whole first paragraph except in the very most extreme of cases (think harlequin ichthyosis).
Replace "the parents" with "everyone" in your last sentence and that's my view. You can be handicapped and happy or healthy and sad. You shouldn't decide that someone doesn't get a shot at life because you dont think they'll enjoy it.### Human: As for your first paragraph disagreeing with mine, you will need to explain or I have no angle for a retort.
I understand that it is your view, but the focus here is on who would make the better decision. I have stated that the parent would be bias for obvious reasons. Would you mind explaining your point of view as to why everyone else would be more bias? Another way to looking at this would be, at the arbitrary age of 29, do you want a group of medical professionals deciding what is best for you--in terms of your health--or your parent? (Speaking in what is best for your quality of life)
>You shouldn't decide that someone doesn't get a shot at life because you dont think they'll enjoy it.
It's not a matter of "thinking" they will. It is statistics tied with morality. Find me an overwhelming majority--heck, even a sizable minority--that would tell you their overall quality of life and ability to function to their willing would be better if they were severely mentally ill. Go further and look at this as a scientific medical issue. The severely mentally ill simply do not have the quality of life they deserve. They lose their autonomy and health.### Assistant: Well I think the first paragraph is a dead-end. There is no objectively right answer to "Are some things worse than death/Is being mentally handicapped worse than death?". I also don't consider not being born to be different from death. It's the deprivation of future life that matters (at least to me).
>Another way to looking at this would be, at the arbitrary age of 29, do you want a group of medical professionals deciding what is best for you--in terms of your health--or your parent?
Me. Full stop. When the determination is whether or not my life is worth living, I want that decision to be mine and absolutely no one else's.
The last paragraph ties into the first. You say that being mentally handicapped is worse than not existing, I disagree. Why not give the tiebreaker to the ones actually in that situation? You and I have no idea how the mentally handicapped feel about their situations.### Human: The problem with your entire post is that you give this opinion that the decision for what constitutes that best choice for one's well being is arbitrary and in some way is everyone's own decision. I would agree with this to an extent, but the severely handicap cannot make this choice.
This seems to be your main point, however, in arguing against my position. The problem is, while doing this, you are leaving the decision up to the parents to birth the child. If it's the individuals decision to make, and in this case the individual cannot make it, the default position should be that know one can make the decision for the child--in my opinion it's the lesser of the two evils. I know this view seems as if an authoritative figure stepping it is making a decision, but it's not that way. It is an authoritative figure stepping in and voiding the parents decision to make a decision that should not be their's to make. And while it is their child, there needs to be some instances where a parent does not always *own* another human. There needs to be a method in place to statistically results in the best outcome for society and humans that may have to suffer, but shouldn't have to.
As for your 2nd paragraph, I understand that it should be your choice when determining "whether or not my life is worth living" I agree, but my scenario I gave you was who would make the best educated decision that would result in the optimum quality of life--not if the life is worth living. My scenario was to create a situation in which you did not have a choice (AKA unborn fetus), and who would be the best decision maker. And to further expand on that, in the instance of you being A.) An unborn fetus B.) Severely mentally ill, you are unable to make that choice. So again, it needs to be made by who will consistently--and who won't be bias--make the best decision for the overall quality of life of that human.
To reiterate more on who has/doesn't have the right to make the decision when it comes to the unhealthy fetus, I find it hard to explain my POV. To me the default position is not being birthed. The parents are making the decision first by having the baby. I think there should be a process that maximizes well-being for all humans in this position. The reason being is simply because someone being a parent, will never mean they will make the best decision--or could make the best decision--for their offspring. This warrants a method that has to step in to prevent poor decisions from being made for the potential humans sake. |
### Human: CMV: A vegan diet is not healthier or more life-extending than a balanced meat-eating diet.### Assistant: A "vegan diet" is just any diet that excludes animal products. So, french fries and oreos can be a vegan diet...in that way your view is correct.
What your view needs to change about is your understanding of veganism. It's not a diet, it's an ethical stance against the unnecessary exploitation of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, or any other purpose.### Human: [removed]### Assistant: What are you doing here if you're not interested in this discussion?### Human: I'm just generally anti-vegan.### Assistant: Just out of spite? Or what?### Human: I don't like their pointless moralizing about how eating meat is cruel.### Assistant: Why would moralizing be pointless? Also, eating meat is fine. The animal is already dead by then. Violent maiming and total squalor during life are the problem. Most people wouldn't be OK with their dog or cat living the way farm animals have to live, so why be OK with it for pigs?### Human: Most people wouldn't kill and eat their dog or cat either, but it's still ok for pigs. We're predators. If that's immoral, then nature itself is immoral so vegans might as well just kill themselves.### Assistant: >Most people wouldn't kill and eat their dog or cat either, but it's still OK for pigs.
That's my point. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance there. Post a picture of some Southeast Asian market selling dogs and watch people suddenly act outraged at the cruelty of it all.
> We're predators. If that's immoral, then nature itself is immoral.
We're also rapists and thieves and pedophiles, but no one makes naive appeals to instinct to tolerate that shit. The "let us do what comes naturally!" argument is nonsense. Humans are moral agents. Most people claim to have morals of some kind that they value and try to uphold, even though it isn't always easy or convenient. That is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals.### Human: It's fine for Southeast Asia because they don't have the easy access to food that we do. They have to make do with what they've got.
Rape and pedophilia aren't natural instincts (for most of us, can't speak for you), and thievery only exists due to social constructs.
Animals are our prey. If your delicate sensibilities can't handle that, you don't belong in the real world.### Assistant: >It's fine for Southeast Asia because they don't have the easy access to food that we do. They have to make do with what they've got.
You really just sound like you don't know a damn thing about any of this at all. They have *tons* of food, including cows and chickens. They eat dogs because culture is pretty arbitrary and theirs says dogs are fine for eating.
>Rape and pedophilia aren't natural instincts (for most of us, can't speak for you), and thievery only exists due to social constructs.
Are you joking? Rape is such a natural part of human behavior that some places [don't even recognize most of it as criminal at all](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape). If you're married, having sex is "natural" and therefore everything is fine. Nevermind that you didn't want to.
>Animals are our prey.
That's a choice people make. You're not out there eating squirrels and robins and bats and possums for dinner. Why not? You choose what you eat. People aren't instinct-machines.
> If your delicate sensibilities can't handle that, you don't belong in the real world.
The real world being what here? A world where doing morally objectionable things on purpose is fine because lazy arguments like "Fuck it! I love bacon!" are enough for you? In the real world, people make choices based on the things they feel are important or sensible. At least be honest with yourself about it.### Human: Southeast Asia is a pretty gross place. They eat a bunch of rotting shit that just sits out in the sun usually.
Oh, you must be one of those feminist types who thinks rape culture is a real thing.
I'd eat any of those things if it was as easy to obtain as store-bought meat. Lots of people eat squirrel.
Yeah, you're definitely too weak for this planet. In any era that wasn't as soft and coddling as the modern day, you wouldn't have been able to exist.### Assistant: Rape culture and marital rape would be completely different things, regardless of whether or not you believe in either, but I suppose you haven't given any of this enough thought to tell the difference. It's hilarious that you think squirrels and urban wildlife are hard to get and then turn and tell me I wouldn't survive in the "real world" or whatever it is. I don't know what you're imagining about me, but I'm sure it would surprise you.
Anyway, I guess we're done here. Maybe in a few years you'll be ready to think and talk about things you're uncomfortable with. Shoot me a message and we'll try again.### Human: Try killing a squirrel with no gun, it won't happen.
You don't get to declare victory after being so thoroughly defeated. Veganism makes no points other than "boo hoo poor animals," and that's a fact. It's a bunch of people running purely on emotion rebelling against nature and thinking it's actually a productive thing.### Assistant: You're totally right. No one managed to hunt anything faster than a cow before guns were invented.
No one is declaring victory. I'm saying that this is a mistrial because you're too childish to talk about it.### Human: Before guns, people either used bows to hunt, or it took multiple hunters chasing prey for hours.### Assistant: Just stop.### Human: You must be a vegan.### Assistant: It's like you're some kind of novelty bot designed to show people examples of logical fallacies and piss poor debate. It's pretty impressive.### Human: Coming from the vegan, whose entire platform is based on empty moralizing and limp-dicked appeals to emotion.### Assistant: Morality, not emotion. Everyone cares about it, even you.
If you get a boner from your food you're doing it wrong.
OK OK. That's enough arguing with a bot for now. See you next time.### Human: Only your "morality" is actually just based on conclusions you came to through overly-emotional foolishness, which is why your moralizing falls flat. |
### Human: CMV: Advocating against the carrying of firearms is the incorrect way to address gun violence in the US. Addressing mental health and progressive education is the way.### Assistant: > Just to add, can someone explain to me their rationale against why the public should have access to firearms? Why should someone not have protection with them especially in cases where they have the potential to save theirs, but others lives as well.
I'd just like to address that. You're assuming that the public can use guns effectively to protect themselves and others. For home defense, that doesn't really matter, but for carry in public it's a pretty big deal.
For one, I think gun ownership encourages people to play hero when they shouldn't. During a bank robbery, for instance, you don't want a bystander to escalate the situation by shooting at the robber. You now have a freaked out robber who feels like he has to use his weapon to defend his life and avoid apprehension where he would have just left with money without anyone getting hurt.
And then there's the obvious problem with skill. Do you trust that random stressed out guy with questionable shooting skills to take a shot and hit the criminal rather than another bystander or even you? Even trained police officers have trouble with accuracy and self control when they're in stressful situations.
That said, I'm not against the right to own guns, but I think we should make sure that people have to complete quality training before being allowed to carry in public.### Human: CCW permit holders are more law abiding than any other group of Americans
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/10/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-more-law-abiding-than-police/### Assistant: Oh sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. I was talking about skill and composure. If they don't have the necessary skill and composure to protect themselves and/or others without endangering innocent bystanders, then they probably shouldn't try, especially not if it results in them needlessly escalating a situation.
I don't doubt that CCW permit holders are lawful and moral for the most part and that they have good intentions when trying to save others, but if they're not at least as competent as police officers in terms of shooting skills and composure (where I would still try to take cover, since it's not uncommon for police to accidentally shoot bystanders), those good intentions could pave the road to hell.### Human: A lot of CCW permit holders are veterans### Assistant: In that case, they should definitely be qualified unless they were dishonorably discharged for recklessness or something like that.### Human: If you are dishonorably discharged, it is a felony for you to own a firearm, because being dishonorably discharged is the equivalent to a felony### Assistant: Oh, thanks I didn't know that. |
### Human: I don't believe we should always protect endangered species. CMV### Assistant: >Like it or not, extinction is part of evolution.
This argument has obvious flaws. Extinction being a part of the natural set of rules that govern our earth does not mean that we would just permit, without trying to prevent it, our own species going extinct because it is "part of evolution". It also doesn't mean that extinction must be good just because it can happen (or that the effects of extinctions are never negative).
>hy should we hamper industry with regulations protecting a species that is dying off from "natural" causes?
At this point, we have influenced our natural world to the extent that even species dying from disease/predation have, with all likelihood, been impacted by our activity first.
Species going extinct is not necessarily a **good** thing, especially if they provide some key role in the environment. I.e apex predators = keystone species, primary consumers providing food for secondary consumers, and so forth. There isn't a great reason **not** to prevent extinction unless an organism is posing a significant threat to all of earth's ecosystems.
edit: grammar### Human: [deleted]### Assistant: you're right, and priority is not given to ALL endangered species. they may be listed as endangered and somewhat protected, but the funding goes towards keystone species and other ecologically important species. Also, humans impact the environment in just about every way. Changing temperature and similar things have a global impact that can in turn exacerbate other existing "natural" problems. I definitely agree with you on some level though, but humans are causing one of the largest mass-extinction events in history. The number of species going extinct daily is absurd, so we should do what we can to reduce it.### Human: How many species are going extinct daily?### Assistant: [**This page**](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/) explains it very well (essentially, we don't know the FULL impact/# of species for a lot of reasons), but
"The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.
These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year."
edit/tl;dr: using this math, anywhere from 1-270 species/day are going extinct### Human: Interesting. While the WWF has noble goals, it's not something I will take at face value without backing things up. They don't cite the experts who
>calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year
so that got me googling and I found some "experts" who contradict those numbers. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6118/413
>Some people despair that most species will go extinct before they are discovered. However, such worries result from overestimates of how many species may exist, beliefs that the expertise to describe species is decreasing, and alarmist estimates of extinction rates. We argue that the number of species on Earth today is **5 ± 3 million**, of which 1.5 million are named. New databases show that there are more taxonomists describing species than ever before, and their number is increasing faster than the rate of species description. Conservation efforts and species survival in secondary habitats are at least delaying extinctions. Extinction rates are, however, poorly quantified, ranging from 0.01 to 1% (at most 5%) per **decade**. We propose practical actions to improve taxonomic productivity and associated understanding and conservation of biodiversity.
emphasis mine.
so they say (they being from University of Aukland, University of Oxford, and Griffith University though I don't know their biases or sources of funding) 2 million species on the low end and 8 on the high end. So on the highest end of the scale we are loosing between 800 and 80,000 per decade. or the high end 22 a day (((8 million*1%)/10 years)/365 days). or "at most" 110 per day. Still high, but it shows there's a lot out there that we really don't know.### Assistant: Good idea to look at other info, WWF was just the first site that came up when I googled it.
> the high end 22 a day (((8 million*1%)/10 years)/365 days). or "at most" 110 per day.
using that same math at 2million (low end), you get just over 5/day
I also checked out another site for fun, [PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html), and it came up with about 75/day
> "In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone."
Either way, that sucks.... :/ |
### Human: There is absolutely no reason to make my bed if nobody else is coming over. CMV### Assistant: A clean bed is aesthetically pleasing. I imagine your parents get enjoyment out of seeing a nice clean room, including a nice made bed. I certainly don't think that enjoyment is worth someone making their bed, but that is a legitimate benefit from it.### Human: I respect that, but I don't get any enjoyment out of seeing a nice clean room. I could see how this is a good reason for others who derive pleasure from neatness.### Assistant: Why do you want your view changed?### Human: I have to give a little disclaimer, I am a mere teenager living with my parents. My father has tried to convince me that it's good to make my bed, even made deals like "If you make your bed, I'll make mine" (rather than the housekeeper) but I find the whole thing silly. I keep my door closed and nobody is any the wiser.### Assistant: He is trying to convince you to develop a work ethic, and work on chores that you would initially feel pointless. I think that he expects that you will appreciate made beds in the future, too.
Perhaps he regrets being lazy with such tasks.
Later in life, you may find that this willingness to work on chores will have positive consequences. One example is that in your job, you may have to do small chores that you would rather not to.
Whether it would be merely an inconvenience or something that is completely soul crushing depends on your views on work, but generally speaking having a high tolerance to boredom can let you have a job that is very great, except by some minor chores you need to do occasionally. In this sense, it would expand your opportunities, thus making you more free in the long run.### Human: >He is trying to convince you to develop a work ethic, and work on chores that you would initially feel pointless.
This is the key, to be honest.
A lot of stuff you do as an adult *will literally be pointless*. It won't just be that you can't see the point because you don't understand, it will be menial timewasting with no inherent value. You need to learn to do it anyways, because your boss said so, and ultimately it derives value from that alone.### Assistant: You get it exactly.
I'm utterly incapable of doing pointless chores. Or any chores at all. As such I'm at disadvantage in any job I perform.
Generally speaking, I have poor work ethic, and I lack discipline in other areas in my life (such as: I should be doing something else, instead of being on reddit). I don't know whether my aversion to chores is connected to this. |
### Human: CMV:Clickbait isn't that bad. (Reason Number 2 Will Blow You Away!)### Assistant: I agree that clickbait isn't inherently bad. In fact I have myself on occasion been known to (probably drunkenly) click on titles with some embarrassing headlines I won't list here.
Here's the issue I see with clickbait: beyond whether it misrepresents the content behind the headline, it cheapens journalism and the
journalism industry in real, demonstratively damaging ways. The journalism industry has had to undergo a radical transformation in the last 15-20 years as traditional models of funding are no longer feasible. While this certainly isn't clickbait's fault, it does mean that organizations that produce quality journalism now have to compete for page views (at this point the most financially valuable metric for news agencies) in a consumer ecosystem where "eye-catching" headlines mean more eyes than quality content.
This isn't to say that "quality" news orgs (I would say in the US this includes nyt, npr, pri... Various other acronyms) have never produced shitty or misleading content, or that clickbait orgs never produce quality content (check out buzzfeed's actually amazing series on the AUMF), but in general these orgs have completely different values and are yet now competing in the same marketplace. This impacts the quality of content news orgs are able to produce.### Human: I would argue, on the "cheapens journalism" point, that the headline is very important as far as getting people to read your article or watch your video is concerned. It's their first impression of your work. You can have the best written piece with the most well structured arguments but if the headline is off putting, few will read it.
As far as clickbait is concerned (assuming it doesn't mislead the reader about the content), what will attract people's attention changes over time. Culture affects what people are interested in and now it appears that this style is popular. If it weren't, it would've died by now, but editors can see that these are the stories that are most often read and make editorial decisions to have more.### Assistant: The thing is that the structure of click bait articles is that they're structured for optimum spread, not optimum journalistic integrity or knowledge dissemination or anything besides generating clicks and page views.
In addition, popular is not synonymous with good. The concern of this does irreparable harm to journalism as a field.### Human: I wasn't referring to articles as a whole. I was only talking about those that have clickbait headlines. I know that, typically, an article with such a headline tends to have a poor standard. My point was on the headline alone.### Assistant: Its somewhat tied to the structure of the article itself. I've never seen a list type article that I would call good journalism, but it is good click bait. It discretely quantifies how much content there is and lists are significantly easier to consume than normal journalism. This combination makes an attractive headline unrelated to what the article is actually about.### Human: > I've never seen a list type article that I would call good journalism, but it is good click bait.
I'd recommend [Listverse](http://listverse.com/). Though most of their content is second hand, they do give credit to their sources.
As for your other point...
∆
You have made me realise that the headline can detract from the overall article itself because, if it can get someone to click on it, it puts less pressure on the article itself.### Assistant: Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LemonWarlord.
[^LemonWarlord's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/lemonwarlord) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot) |
### Human: CMV: Women who are anti-feminism do not have internalized misogyny.### Assistant: >but against the belief in the patriarchy and institutional misogyny
Dont we indisputably live in a patriarchy? Men more or less control all the top tiers of industry and politics (aka the world).
Edit: ITT: a lot of people who dont understand what a patriarchy is### Human: There is a difference between 'men have the power' and 'the people who have the power are men.' There are more advocates for women's rights/feminism than those who oppose women's rights/feminism in the government. In what way is that a patriarchy?
While there are more male CEO's, it's not really fair to look at only the high end of the spectrum. Men are also represented far more greatly at the other end of the spectrum. Men overwhelmingly have most of the low-end jobs, such as coal-mining, truck-driving, and construction jobs, which account for millions of jobs. Its not like the men in industry oppose women or women's rights.### Assistant: Women also overwhelmingly have *different* low end jobs that you're ignoring, mainly in the service and healthcare industry.### Human: Healthcare is not a low end job. The [lowest paying jobs in healthcare](http://www.hospitaljobsonline.com/career-center/healthcare-careers/the-lowest-paying-hospital-jobs.html) are the same as the [median income of a single person](http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/) in the U.S. Nurses, who are predominantly women, earn upwards of 60k a year. Additionally, the working conditions of these jobs are at least satisfactory.
The work conditions of the service industry, many of which are office jobs, are far better than the manufacturing and transportation industries.### Assistant: Like /u/glass_underfoot said, caregivers, people in nursing homes, office staff in doctor's offices, etc. By the service industry I mean things like maids, hotel staff, etc.
This isn't a pissing contest- it's shitty on all sides, it's just different kinds of shitty.### Human: True, but many of the shitty, low-end service jobs women work tend to be tipped positions, which easily doubles or even triples their wages. Men are rarely put in positions where they can receive tips.### Assistant: I agree with your view about male/female job opportunities and niches, but that argument is simply false. Tipped jobs don't make more than non-tipped jobs -- the reason is that tipped jobs usually pay *less* than minimum wage as a base amount, and raise above if tips are above it. Usually, a server at a chain restaurant won't make much more than a few dollars above minimum wage when factoring in the base pay + tips.### Human: Do you have a source for that last assertion?### Assistant: I'm relying on overwhelming anecdotal evidence as of now, but I can probably find something. Give me a minute.
Looking at Glassdoor.com, most restaurants tend to pay anywhere from 2$ to 7$ in base pay. The remaining salrary is in tips. The best source I could find including tips was [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_States), in wikipedia, which states that:
>As of May 2012, the average hourly wage – including tips – for a restaurant employee in the United States that received tip income was **$11.82**
National minimum wage is 7.25. Many states have higher, and while I couldn't find a direct source, I would assume the median minimum wage is more than 7.25 (only 3 states have minimum wages less than the federal rate. [source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States)).
So looking at those two statistics, 11.82 is a few dollars above national minimum wage. Obviously this is the average -- it depends on the state, area, and restaurant, and there will be people who make more and people who make less. Also, depending on your circumstances, 3 or 4 dollars more than minimum wage might be significant. I wouldn't be inclined to call it significant, though, but I'm speaking from a middle class perspective -- someone who has lived off of a lower-paying job might have a better idea of what the numbers mean.### Human: You know that tipped employees absolutely never report all of their tips, right?### Assistant: Do you have a source for that?
:) |
### Human: CMV: I believe Scandinavian countries are the most civilized in the world.### Assistant: By using words like "civilized," "progressive," and "advanced," you are making a big philosophical assumption about the way the world works. You believe that the world is progressing or improving to be a better place than it used to be.
This idea is pretty popular in the US and Western Europe, but doesn't reflect how people in other parts of the world view how things are changing. A central tenet of many Eastern philosophies (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) is that the world stays the same. Things change, but they don't ever improve or become worse. It's like evolution by natural selection. If the environment changes, species adapt to the changes, but they aren't objectively better or worse animals, just different.
As another East/West (or Global North/South, developed/developing, etc.) observation, your definition of what it means to be civilized is based on your own culture's opinion of what it means to be "civilized." For example, you might consider secular values more civilized, but someone in the Vatican would probably consider pious values to be more civilized. As another example, Scandinavian countries may be socialist at the state level, but they are [highly individualistic at the interpersonal level.](http://imgur.com/gallery/2qAfF) Many countries around the world would find this lack of contact to be orderly, but hallow. Can a culture be considered "civilized" if they rarely speak to their neighbors?
So what I'm saying is that by your own standards, Scandinavia may very well be the most civilized region in the world, but it's in the same way that a Toyota Sienna might be the perfect blend of safety, space, and comfort for a family of four. However, just because it fits your particular preferences doesn't mean that it fits everyone else's. Furthermore, I think the idea of a country being "civilized" has a long (and often racist) history, and isn't all that valuable now that we are past the age of colonialism.
Edit: I mixed up "tenet" with "tenant." Thanks to /u/howbigis1gb for noticing.### Human: I know it's a very popular opinion amongst undergrads, but the relativism displayed in your comment has been universally disagreed by academic philosophy.
There are some forms of relativism that are current, such as the work of David Wong, but he doesn't go to the "that's just your opinion man".### Assistant: That's kind of a condescending comment. Do you have any evidence of how this idea "has been universally disagreed by academic philosophy?"### Human: Philpapers did a survey to tons of academic philosophers polling them on several topics.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
When come to normative ethics about 68% supported one of the three traditional schools of normative ethics (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism). All 3 of those aren't relativism. Contractualism would also be a solid chunk as well as pragmatism, any religous ethics, etc. Overall I'd guess very little would be relativist, and considering the most recent respected relativist works (David Wong comes to mind again) none of it would be like the usual "vulgar" relativism seen typically. Prohibiting one culture judging another wouldn't be there, there would be support for some universal moral ideals, etc.### Assistant: Maybe you should try talking to an Anthropologist then... |
### Human: CMV: There is no good reason to colonize mars.### Assistant: > We will run out of resources on earth
We WILL run out of resources on earth. Fossil fuels are declining, and it's likely we'll need to leave most of them un-exploited in order to prevent baking the planet. Many alternative fuels require large amounts of rare earth metals, catalysts like platinum, or other comparatively rare materials.
> We could get hit by an asteroid or nuke ourselves.
Building vaults in the core might or might not protect the species from a planetary threat. Even if it did, what then? We have a nice vault that can sustain us ... for a while. That's one helluva future to leave to our descendants. The consequences of a major asteroid strike could continue for millions of years.
> Exploration/mapping the universe
Satellites/rovers do a decent job of answering the questions that we can come up with asking in advance. They don't do a particularly good job at finding answers to questions we didn't even know we should be asking, and it can be a decade or more before a new rover/satellite could be built and sent. No disparaging the rover/satellite/probe teams - they do some absolutely incredible work, but there still is just no replacing putting the scientist directly next to the thing they're researching for the human pattern recognition ability to really jump into overdrive.
In addition, at the moment, the heaviest launch vehicle that we have is the Delta IV Heavy which can put appx 14k kg into Geostationary Transfer Orbit. As a consequence of getting man to Mars is figuring out how to get much more into orbit at a lower cost, and how to propel it at higher speeds with lower amounts of fuel. Those same advances in rocketry and intraplanetary travel will directly help our probes and satellites - allowing them to be launched more cheaply and get to their destinations faster.
Step back 600 years or so to when Europeans were exploring the world. These were some hideously expensive explorations with completely unknown outcomes - "Discovering" America, South America, all of the various islands around the globe, etc. Sure, the kings and queens of Europe could have said - eh, lets just focus on ourselves - we have plenty of natural resources here, we have no need to find new places. However, explore they did, and incredible amounts of wealth and prosperity flowed to the countries that did it best.
Mars is but a first step - after that may be the clouds of Venus, the moons of Saturn, asteroid mining, or any number of other steps. I would much rather leave the first step to colonizing the universe to my descendants then encouraging them to hunker down and ignore the fact that one of these days our planet will die and it will take us with it if we don't grow and spread.### Human: We're not exactly going to find oil or water on Mars. If the Earth is so barren that bringing back resources from *Mars* is a better alternative, that's it, we're going extinct.
If the Earth is destroyed and can't supply Mars, even then Earth still couldn't possibly be *less* hospitable. If we can terraform Mars, then we would have the technology to fix Earth, too, and if we don't, we're buggered either way. Again, extinction event.
Quite frankly, I think it's silly and arrogant to think we're going to outlive the Earth. I agree that *going* to Mars and planting a flag or setting up a space station may be a good idea, but actual *colonization* by civilians for a purely pragmatic reason would be... less than useful.
That said, the pride of our species is worth plenty to me. I'm glad we landed on the moon, and I hope we land on Mars just for the sake of it.### Assistant: >Quite frankly, I think it's silly and arrogant to think we're going to outlive the Earth. I agree that going to Mars and planting a flag or setting up a space station may be a good idea, but actual colonization by civilians for a purely pragmatic reason would be... less than useful.
Eventually, we should be able to get to a point where a base/colony on Mars would be self-sustaining. All the resources you would need (water, carbon, energy, ect) are already there, after all. It would require some technological development, but it's something we should eventually be able to do.
Once you get a self-sustaining colony on Mars, now you have a population of people who are living and slowly expanding a Mars base/colony on their own without using up any Earth-resources at all. They'll develop science, culture, new technology, new ideas, and in the long run they'll probably be able to develop their own space program and both trade with Earth and continue to expand humans into the outer solar system. Again, all the resources needed to do this are already on Mars.
It's a very long term investment, no question, but in the very long term, it would be an incredibly good one for the human species as a whole, eventually paying itself back millions of time over. I mean, really, how could it not? It's another *whole planet*.### Human: It's another whole planet with nothing but base elements. We need way more than just water and carbon, man. And Mars doesn't even really have an adequate supply of water, anyway. There's nothing there worth having. Why not colonize the desert first? It would be easier. Why would Martians develop new tech we couldn't do here? With less to work with at that? Why would we need to go to Mars to come up with new ideas?
We should go there for the sake of doing it, sure, but how in the world(s) would it ever pay us back to colonize? It's not a whole new Earth, it's a rock. With nothing but rock and more rock. It is in no way a land of milk and honey, there's no oil, there's no water, there's no life, there's nothing, you can't even farm the soil. It has bauxite maybe?
[](/maudbored "Maybe Maud would like it?")### Assistant: [](/maudexcited "Yes. Definitely.")
Dude don't hate. Rocks are cool.### Human: They don't sustain life without some organic matter in the mix, though. If we can make *Mars* livable, then we're to a point where we can fix the Earth anyway. We're never going to make the Earth less hospitable than *Mars*. And if we really can just run out of resources like that, it's just a few decades or centuries of delaying the inevitable.
I'm all for exploring, but y'all are watching too much sci-fi
[](/pinkieintensifies "NASA TRIP!!!") |
### Human: CMV: Tax cuts for the wealthy are a terribly inefficient way to create jobs.### Assistant: > You need years of 3 to 4% growth to counteract 40% less corporate tax income.
No one is claiming that cutting corporate income tax would be revenue neutral. However, eliminating corporate income tax would be extremely beneficial to society, especially workers.
[Laurence Kotlikoff](http://www.nber.org/data-appendix/w19757/CorporateTaxPaper.pdf) wrote a nice paper simulating the effects of eliminating the corporate income tax.
>Fully eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing any loss in revenues with somewhat higher personal income tax rates leads to a huge short-run inflow of capital, raising the United States’ capital stock (machines and buildings) by 23 percent, output by 8 percent and the real wages of unskilled and skilled workers by 12 percent.
There's also a litany of literature by academic economists which show that corporate income tax is bad for societal welfare.
- [Taxing Capital Income: A Bad Idea](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2331.pdf)
- [The Incidence of the Corporation Income Tax](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1828856)
- [The Role and Design of the Corporate Income Tax](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3439695)
- [How Should a Subnational Corporate Income Tax on Multistate Businesses Be Structured?](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41790179)
- [The Corporate Income Tax in the Long Run](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1827370)
- [Globalization of the Corporate Income Tax: The Role of Allocation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40912895)
- [The Corporation and the Corporate Income Tax in the American Economy](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818361)
- [Reality Check on Corporate Taxes](http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/11/13/reality-check-on-corporate-income-tax-rates)
- [The Corporate Income Tax System: Overview and Options for Reform](https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42726.pdf)
- [Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/09_Effects_Income_Tax_Changes_Economic_Growth_Gale_Samwick_.pdf)
- [A reappraisal of the corporation income tax](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047272776900451)
- [Corporate Income Tax Reform: The Neglected Issue of Tax Incidence](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592605500031)
- [The corporate income tax in an open economy](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004727278290072X)
- [The impact of corporate and personal income taxes on the location of firms and on employment: some panel evidence for the Swiss cantons](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727270100175X)
- [The direct incidence of corporate income tax on wages](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292112000451)
- [The impact of the corporate income tax: evidence from state organizational form data](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272703001968)### Human: I'm still for eliminating the corporate tax rate just because I think it encourages entrepreneurship which is always a good thing for any society, but the idea of it being conducive to hiring is ridiculous.
Businesses aren't hiring because they don't need more people. Automation is the core driver of unemployability atm, we want people who work smart, who do as much as possible to replace their own jobs with clever innovation.### Assistant: I provided a litany of papers that say the incidence of corporate income tax falls on workers. Do you have any evidence to support your claim at all?### Human: An argument isn't credible due to the amount of support it has. It's credible because it makes logical sense and can be backed up by evidence. Anyone can cite a bunch of articles for any viewpoint, for something to be viewed as credible it only needs one properly done empirical study. Logically, the argument is that having more resources allows businesses to hire more. Sure, makes sense. But that only works if businesses actually need to hire more but don't because the trade offs aren't worth it.
The majority of companies don't lack the resources to hire workers. There are millions of qualified individuals who are desperate and willing to work incredibly low wages while bringing high value to the table. Logically, technological unemployment is going to be the leading cause of unemployment going forward. How the hell is a corporate tax reduction going to make companies hire more if they don't need to hire more?### Assistant: What you're not getting is that the effect of most policies on the economy comes from marginal cases. So you keep talking about how businesses don't need to hire new people, that automation is the "core driver" over unemployability, but that's obviously not the case for all businesses. There is some number of businesses that would higher more if the corporate tax rate were lowered. It's not like there one singular factor causing all unemployment in the country at any given time.### Human: Ofc they could potentially hire more, and hey I'm all for lowering the corporate tax just because of how worthless it is. But the effect, especially for large corporations, will hardly make a dent in unemployment. And so while this could be a start in an economic agenda it is a non-solution for systemic unemployability.### Assistant: What makes you say that though? I mean you called the notion "ridiculous," and I'm not sure why you're trivializing it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.