diff --git "a/quiet-ml/17/data.csv" "b/quiet-ml/17/data.csv" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/quiet-ml/17/data.csv" @@ -0,0 +1,5115 @@ +sentence +"karnim: I'm going to boil down your post down to 2 main points: + +1 - You think it's okay to use stereotypes to create the basis for a character. + +2 - You don't think you need to worry about the minority of your audience. + +For point 1, the problem isn't really stereotyping. Yeah, stereotyping is bad, whatever. The main thing is though, it just feels like cheap storytelling. Your main character should be built from the ground up, not off a stereotype. If the character *happens* to be black, fine, but if you go ""Well, it's a gang, so let's make them black"" before considering the character's, well, character then you're building a character off of something that's already broken. Same goes for representing women. The woman probably doesn't *need* to be represented as super sexy. To represent her as such when her character wouldn't dress that way is just a cheap character build to get sales from teenage boys. You *can* make sexy characters that are also strong, but it should be a part of their character. + +Compare the number of games out there with pointless but sexy guy characters to the number with pointless but sexy lady characters. Clearly, there's some cheap character building going on with the women. + + +As for point 2. You should include minorities in games for 2 reasons. First off, it makes your fans happy. It's the same reason that TV shows and movies have minority characters. Most people don't mind, but it gives those minorities something to finally relate to in a main character. It feels nice. The second reason is that it allows for more interesting story-telling. If your characters are all monochromatic, you lose a lot of potential drama and character growth. For example, you could make a game about the civil war and have all-white troops, but then it would basically be CoD again. Add some black troops to the units, and it becomes much more interesting story-telling. +throwawayjr: >First off, it makes your fans happy. + +True, but I still don't care about it. I mentioned a bit earlier that my success hinges on opinion, and the consensus among others I've told, and apparently a few here, that I'm an asshole. + +>The second reason is that it allows for more interesting story-telling. If your characters are all monochromatic, you lose a lot of potential drama and character growth. + +Someone else took this angle, and I'm still not convinced. If anyone is convinced that sexuality or racial tension can't make for a good story, someone should tell Hollywood. Fastish." +"nwf839: > I cannot believe that the outer districts would simply stand for being forced to sacrifice children from their own communities for the sake of a sporting event whose very overt purpose is solely for the entertainment of the elite and the demoralization of the other districts. + +Terrorist leaders using women and children as suicide bombers with the goal of increasing their own political power + +> I don't believe the elite could suddenly become so depraved that they would relish and cheer to watch children brutally murder one another, even if they were somewhat depraved. There is just a cognitive dissonance between their own sense of humanity and desire to live, and their joyous reception of the participants in the games, immediately followed by their cheering on their murdering one another. I can't get past that. I feel like there is meant to be a social commentary here, but I can't figure out what it is, perhaps if someone can point me to it it would help. + +The Coliseum in Roman times + +> Within the games themselves, the way certain groups of tributes gleefully ally with one another and hunt down others seems unbelievable. Alliances probably would happen, but they would be reluctant and untrusting of one another since at the end of the day, everyone knows there can be only one survivor and that at some point they would be murdered by their own ally. I'm not a game theorist but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen as depicted in the story. + +I don't think it's that unbelievable that people would revert to primal Machiavellian logic if they were put in a situation where they were being hunted. Animals will do pretty much anything for survival. +zjm555: Excellent examples. You've actually convinced me that point 1 and 2 might be believed. However, I think your point here: + +> I don't think it's that unbelievable that people would revert to primal Machiavellian logic if they were put in a situation where they were being hunted. Animals will do pretty much anything for survival. + +Is what makes the human behavior in the book seem inconsistent to me. To believe #1, you have to believe that the people in the outer districts are so afraid of death that they willingly sacrifice children from their community. Which is actually believable -- shocking tactics are deployed in war as you say to instill fear in people so they will obey. And that's precisely why I can't buy point #3 if I do buy point #1 -- so many of the tributes seem *excited* at the prospect of the games, knowing that they will almost certainly die, or at least have to murder other people. That same primal fear that allows subjugation would also cause the tributes to behave very differently than they do. + +And I still have a slight problem believing point #2 even when compared to the coliseum, as I outlined in a response to another comment: + +> But did they glorify the slaves before and after the battles, ""getting to know them"" as people like in THG? I feel like the only way people would be entertained by that is by seeing the combatants as subhuman, and if you ""get to know them"" and see them as human, it would suddenly be sickening. E.g., celebrating Katniss's romance and engagement, then cheering when she gets selected once again for the games just doesn't make sense." +"elvish_visionary: While I agree with you that safe-driving cars will likely eventually become mainstream, I'm not sure where you got your time line from because it seems grossly exaggerated. There is no way that self-driving cars are going to replace human-driven cars in 16 years. Even if the technology advances that quickly (very unlikely) it's still going to take a good 20+ years for society to accept them. +DoScienceToIt: Of course it's all just ballpark estimates, but I still think that drivers in 16 years won't *need* to learn how to drive. Self-driving options will be common enough that only hobbiests will learn, like people who learn how to ride horses. " +"garnteller: No one is saying that you shouldn't use available information to make as informed a decision as possible. + +The warning against judging is meant in the sense of ""don't be judgement""- i.e, don't jump to conclusions about people's motivations or characters based on insufficient information. + +Some examples: +You are picking a babysitter. One has an enormous tatoo, the other doesn't. A judgmental person may exclude the person with the tat - but it turns out the tatoo is in memory of a child she cared for who died of cancer. + +Some will judge someone who got divorced as a poor judge of character or unable to maintain a commitment. But there are many other reasons why the marriage might not have worked out. + +A black man shows up at your store late at night, unshowered, unshaven and wearing sweats - but maybe he's a doctor returning from a grueling shift. + +The full thought is that you might not know the whole story, so don't let your biases keep you from thinking things through. +therisinghippo: This is where I would bring in my jurisdiction argument. If it doesn't directly or indirectly effect me, that is, it has no bearing on me, then I wouldn't even begin to judge anyway. There is no reason to develop an opinion of someone if there is no impact on my life due to or possibly due to that person. + +So picking a babysitter, I reserve every right to judge anyone for any reason because I am choosing to leave my child with that person. If I don't want my child to think that getting a tattoo, regardless of its meaning, is at any time acceptable, then I have every right to judge that tattooed babysitter. + +As for the divorced person: Personally, I don't believe in divorce unless there has been an unfaithful act or there is some sort of physical abuse going on. (I do not want to argue this point, so let's save it for another CMV). That being said, I don't have much jurisdiction in this case. His/Her divorce has nothing to do with me. However, should I be choosing a secretary or another subordinate in a professional setting, I should be able to judge them however I please due to my jurisdiction (I am aware at present time, employment laws prevent the consideration of familial status) + +I don't have jurisdiction over the unshowered man in sweats. I am rational, and though if it were my store I would be prepared for any unusual situation, especially at night, but I wouldn't judge or specifically think he may be a more significant threat based on the information you gave me. However, if he acted strangely, I certainly would judge him, nevertheless. + +Ghost Edit: Typo" +"Hauntrification: Because then some people wouldn't be worth servicing (Little usage) while some people might be paying horridly high amounts because torrents, downloads, videos. The cost of internet mainly stems from the infrastructure and not so much from the data transfer itself while water and electricity have much more cost on what is actually being provided (That said, the infrastructure costs a bit too) but, since it is a basic necessity, the cost is offset by multiple people using said infrastructure in an area. While similar, given multiple internet providers and the fact that not everyone uses it, the infrastructure is much more expensive comparatively. This is again offset by the fact that the transfer of data itself is not as expensive. + + +Edit: What this means is that the primary driver is infrastructure and in a sense, it would be odd to charge based on consumption with super negligible costs on it. You can ""overload"" it and have a higher cost on consumption but that would be quite difficult especially given download speed limits. + + +The other aspect is electricity is a limited resource and so is water, while the internet? Not so much. So while it is morally repulsive to overuse water and electricity, such a limit is not as evident upon usage of the internet. +crustation: Thank you for your response. Does this imply that if the cost per usage is set very, very low, it would be reasonable? What if the price per usage amounts to a lower price than the current flat fee you are paying now, would you go for it? + +Obviously, the concern is that people who don't use as much aren't worth servicing, but this doesn't happen with our regular utilities, so why should Internet access be any different?" +"scottevil110: I would only argue that ""special care"" should be taken when dealing with *anyone*, introvert or not. Part of social interaction is reading the person with whom you're talking, and being sensitive to their personality. You try to avoid rude jokes around people you know aren't going to like it, you try to not yell around people who get freaked out by that kind of thing, and you don't force awkwardness onto someone who doesn't like it. I don't think it's ""kid gloves"" so much as just being aware of the situation and acting accordingly. + +Extroverts have the advantage here because we're so used to engaging with people. It's very easy for me to ""adapt"" my personality to fit a given conversation, simply because I've got so much practice talking to so many different types of people. +abutthole: I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't necessarily change my view. If I'm in a situation that is social by nature, such as work, and there's someone who identifies as an introvert I feel as though they should be making the attempt to be a bigger part of the social atmosphere than just quietly hoping that everyone else in the office would stop talking to them. " +"BenIncognito: Well firstly, I think rhetoric is fairly well covered in schools - at least when I took an advanced rhetoric class in college I was surprised to find that many of the concepts I was learning were not being introduced to me for the first time, just a better understanding of them. So I actually don't really see anything that has to change here. + +Secondly, literature and rhetoric are two different things. Why can't we teach both? The skills learned by studying literature apply to more then just art, you can do a ""close reading"" of anything. Literature provides cultural edification as well, something rhetoric can't really tackle as a subject since it's more focused on the here and now. + +I guess I don't understand why we need to replace literature with rhetoric when both are important. I also feel that rhetoric is taught fairly substantially in schools already. +618907: > when I took an advanced rhetoric class in college I was surprised to find that many of the concepts I was learning were not being introduced to me for the first time, just a better understanding of them. + +Why not start out with the best possible understanding? My point isn't so much that current language programs are inadequate (although maybe they are), it's that their inefficient. I think more ground could be covered in less time if we skipped the literature-specific parts of the language. + +> Why can't we teach both? The skills learned by studying literature apply to more then just art, you can do a ""close reading"" of anything. Literature provides cultural edification as well + +I think rhetoric teaches ""close reading."" And this argument could apply equally well to film studies or music appreciation, especially the ""cultural edification"" bit. I'd even go so far as to say that its deeply elitist to suppose that literature is somehow a more worthwhile cultural pursuit than more popular mediums like film." +"who-boppin: I don't see the difference between raising money on the internet vs raising it in any other way. Is it the blue collar value that appeals too you? I just don't see what the distinction. If people want to give a guy $55,000 to make potato salad. Well good on him. Its not for you to decide how other people spend their money. People spend money on ridiculous things all the time. I love college football. If I was a billionaire, I would be making pretty big donations to the Nebraska football team. Amounts that would seem unreasonable to most people. So if some dude wants to give someone $100 to make potato salad for a joke, I don't see the problem. +Mercurydriver: I'll be honest, yes the ""blue collar value"" appeals to me. I just think that a small business should be started and funded by the person(s) that want to make it happen. I'd rather see a guy start a restaurant because he personally funded it and not because he said on Facebook ""I want a restaurant"" and 1000 people people gave him $20 so that he doesn't have to use his personal resources to pay for his new restaurant." +"I-HATE-REDDITORS: Patriarchy and oligarchy are intimately related. + +> In my opinion, men aren't favored over women. Society simply favors the wealthy, whoever these people may be. + +A history of patriarchy has concentrated the wealth in the hands of men. How convenient for men, then, that society now favors the wealthy! + +> If we lived in a purely patriarchal society, the smashing success of Oprah Winfrey, Anna Maria Escobedo or Sonia Sotomayor wouldn't be possible. + +In a really strict sense of the word ""purely,"" you're right. But this is the same argument you see from those who argue that racism is not longer an issue because Obama was elected president. Extraordinary examples of extremely successful/wealthy women are just that-- extraordinary. +normalfag: >Patriarchy and oligarchy are intimately related + +Citation needed. Is this an *a priori* truth? +>A history of patriarchy has concentrated the wealth in the hands of men. How convenient for men, then, that society now favors the wealthy! + +Now? Has society ever not favored the wealthy, or better yet, the ones with the most resources? +> Extraordinary examples of extremely successful/wealthy women are just that-- extraordinary. + +Doesn't refute my point. It is also not the same argument as ""racism no longer a thing because Obama"" because that pseudo-argument negates the existence of racism for every other minority, which is not part of the previously stated assumption." +"DHCKris: A robot is something very different from an non-organic, cybernetic creature. I thought your view was going to be similar to the premise of the X-Files episode ""War of the Corprophages,"" which suggests that much like we send robots to Mars, aliens will send robots (rather than their own people) to a place where we can make contact. I think THAT kind of ""robot"" is even more likely than the kind you've suggested. +highvemind: That's true-- even if the alien species in question *was* still organic or mostly organic, it would *still* make more sense to send a robot into space. Organic bodies are just not built for the rigors of space travel. " +"[deleted]: > For this reason, I lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities. + +I don't think you'll have anybody arguing with you that cheerleading is alike to figure skating, diving, and gymnastics in that they use subjective scoring instead of objective. So your CMV really isn't ""cheerleading isn't a sport"" but rather ""athletic activities that are subjectively scored aren't sports."" Correct? + +That being said, the ""subjective"" scoring goes off of a strict and specific rubric and the graders are people with extensive experience in the ""sport."" They aren't *really* going off of personal opinion; they're going off of a specific rubric and whether or not the athlete adequately performed each motion as per the rubric. It's not really as subjective as it seems. + +Edit: FURTHER, many of the sports that you consider sports because they're objectively scored have the outcome of the match greatly determined by the SUBJECTIVE decisions of the referees. +Rome_Leader: Sure, to clarify, that is the essence of the question, yes. I was perhaps wrong to title it as I did. + +You may be right! In that sense, they are in line with the rulebook formats of 'Big Four' American sports and soccer, that is true. + +I've addressed your edited point. This is true, but at the end of the day, especially as technology is introduced at more and more levels, there is only one objective result. The ball is over the line or it isn't. The player caught the ball or they didn't. It's sort of a Zeno's Paradox when you start considering all the subjective influence an objective official can have without meaning to (barring obvious game fixing/maliciousness), such that it is impossible to take a single step or action objectively. I'm abstracting a little, I agree, but I feel it is fair!" +"bluefootedpig: Egalitarian simply means to imagine yourself before life, not knowing if you are going to be born poor, rich, male, female, black, white, etc. Before you know this, how would you decide society should look. Should women get special treatment? Should men be in charge? Should we take care of our sick? (you might be born one of the sick). + +Egalitarian just strives that each group is treated the same. The reason various hate groups get involved or leverage egalitarian is because many laws are written to favor one group of people. + +Let's start with affirmitive action. There are requirements for large companies to hire X percentage of minorities, but there is no law requiring them to hire X percentage of whites. Even though 99.9% of businesses wouldn't have an issue with that, the fact that one group is treated special over another is the problem. + +There is an easy way to address this, and John Locke gave the answer. That is a just government must apply the law equally to all citizens. Impacts must fall on the citizens equally or fairly. Now in the case of taxes, this means a progressive tax system that no matter who you are, you pay based on income. But notice our laws for taxes isn't, ""blacks pay 5% less, Asians 1% less, and white pay full amount of taxes"". We don't have tax brackets for different races. + +So various hate groups, or just different groups, always leverage egalitarian as a rebuttal. The reason feminism is attacked, is because much of feminism aims at helping one specific group (namely women). Like the women protection act, which does provide some help for men, but without a doubt mainly helps women. It is not difficult to write men equally into these laws as well. + +So these groups see bills being passed, that exclude them, be it a hate group, or any group. But Egalitarian is merely the belief that each law should equally affect all groups. The idea that we can stop and frisk you because you look foreign is breaking John Locke's ideal government. + +And if we want to bring up something on reddit often, look at MGM vs FGM, one is banned in all forms, considered horrific, while the other one is encouraged by the CDC. Why, when FGM was banned, didn't we ban MGM? This is where MRA's get upset. Laws that put children with the mother because she has a vagina. That doesn't apply to all citizens equally. + +Anyway, I am rambling now. But Egalitarian is a method of deciding the right thing to do, various minority groups often join in because these groups see themselves as victims, and thus not being treated equally as others in the eyes of government and law. + +And to be fair, I think many of these people are right. I think we have coded much bias into our laws. +PasswordIsntHAMSTER: I generally agree with the spirit of your message, however some points stick out to me: + +* I don't feel like you're making a solid argument for Locke-style fairness. There is something to be said for equality of opportunity, which stands in opposition to equality of privilege as proposed by Locke. + +* FGM and MGM are deeply different. FGM is purely done to prevent women from experiencing pleasure, while MGM has historically been thought (mostly erroneously) to have health benefits. MGM is really fucking weird to me, but in the eye of the public it is not a settled thing whether it is actually problematic. + +* You haven't addressed my point about the disconnect between the theory of egalitarianism and how it is represented in reality; in particular, I haven't seen any self-styled egalitarian forums that aimed to supersede feminism rather than to oppose it." +"kuury: 1. Not every turn-based game has action points. Most don't. To be fair, I don't recognize either of the games you're talking about so maybe in your genre of choice that's more popular. + +2. Everything comes down to stats, not logic. You're trying to sway the RNG in your favor with accuracy and evasion stats. It's kind of a cross between preparation/tactics and luck. + +3. If you don't like turns, then there's not much I can say to defend turn-based combat. Yeah, you can't always prepare or predict what the enemy will do while you have the chance. But that's part of the fun of it, frankly. + +Besides all that, turn-based combat keeps things at a more 'casual' pace without destroying tension. It also takes away a lot of skill in favor of preparation and rewarding your efforts. It compliments some games really well, and clashes with others. It just depends on the game. +DocHogan: If you'd be so kind as to point out those games which don't have AP, I'd really appreciate it. As to your point on #2 and #3, I don't see how getting blind sided as part of a game mechanic being fun, nor do I enjoy the idea of things being reduced to luck. I don't mind getting ambushed but like I stated in my example above about the tank, I'd rather it be my fault than a game mechanic that loses me a unit." +"Madplato: The difference is that ""physical sciences"" study a static subject, while sciences preoccupied by social matters and human behaviors need to deal with ever changing variables. Humans change, the way we interact informs following interaction. We're kinda late to the party and we have a huge mess to untangle. + +This does lead to a lot of ""hit and miss"", true, but it also provides valuable knowledge. Statistical work, for example, enables us to know a lot of things about people and their lives. + +jerothattallguy: Biology for instance doesn't study static objects but still uses the scientific method. So why couldn't sociology? " +"hooj: >Books are so expensive for the hours of entertainment I get out of them + +What? These days the average cost of a movie, let alone a 3D one, would cover the cost of a book. You get maybe 3 hrs max of entertainment from a movie. You get hours, days, possibly weeks of entertainment from a book (depending on how fast you read and how much time you have). How is that in any way expensive? + +>I'm a writer myself + +So if you published something, you wouldn't want to earn any money from it? If this was your livelihood, you'd go destitute because you'd give all your books away for free? +Arbuthnot: I work in marketing to pay my bills and write as a hobby. I don't feel that my creative works are worth any money right now. I'm not good enough yet. + +I burn through books incredibly quickly, and if I want to buy a book from Chapters it can be $20-30. Reading through, say, a fantasy series is a big investment." +"celeritas365: > I understand that many would argue that the dogs are victims (as are drug addicts and prostitutes for that matter) + +These are not the same at all. Drug addicts and prostitutes may have been strongly pressured into their situation but on some level they have made the choice to behave that way (unless they are forced then it is human trafficking and not prostitution). Dogs do not choose to be in these dogfights. + +Dog fighting is different from eating an animal for meat because theoretically the animal isn't supposed to be hurt. Dog fighting hurts the animal inevitably. You could argue that you don't care but you can't say these things are the same. +skunkardump: By the standards I described only those dogs that do implicitly choose to fight by acting aggressively towards other dogs would be used." +"scottevil110: There is one very good reason for a store/restaurant to ban concealed carry firearms: The preference of their customers. + +A store exists to please their customers and thus make money. Banning concealed firearms will make a lot of people feel more comfortable going into that place, ""knowing"" (perhaps naively) that they're going into a gun-free store. + +Now, whether or not those customers are correct in feeling that way, or justified, or anything else, is irrelevant. The point is that a lot of people will feel better going into a store with no guns, just as they do going into a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking or dogs or whatever. + +Customer preference is not only a *good* reason to forbid concealed firearms, but I would argue the very *best* reason to. +Trek7553: You're right, and I should have expounded more on this point: + +> other than PR + +It sounds like this boils down to image and how customers perceive the place of business. + +>Customer preference is not only a good reason to forbid concealed firearms, but I would argue the very best reason to. + +I have trouble with this point. I think the safety of all customers should come first. Making an unsafe policy to appease people seems irresponsible. However, stores certainly have a right to do that in the pursuit of profit. + +No delta because my view didn't change (I still think there isn't a *good* reason), but you do make an excellent point." +"CherrySlurpee: Gun control removes the power of the good citizen and places it in the hands of both bad citizens and the state. + +Losing a family member is very tragic, I'm not trying to imply that your situation isn't unfortunate or trivial, but removing guns from the hands of good people really doesn't curb gun violence. Chicago, a city with extreme gun control, has more gun violence than almost any other city in America. Its all behind who's pulling the trigger, not the trigger itself. + +Gun control means that when someone who's willing to break the law breaks into my house, I can't safely protect myself. It's removing my power as a law abiding, good citizen. Accidents are completely negligible, they're basically statistically insignificant. Suicides, while also tragic, are usually going to happen anyways, firearms are just used because they're the ""easiest"" and surest way. + +Not that we should be thankful that active shooters have become a trend, but they're certainly better than the ""trends"" that the unibomber was starting. + +And lastly, but certainly most importantly, is that removing firearms from citizens shifts the balance of power heavily in the government's power. There is a reason that the right to bear arms is the second amendment - that shit is important. I'm very lucky to live in the United States, a country where I can wake up and feel relatively safe from the government. But some day it wont be like that, and there will eventually be blood. In our lifetime? Probably not. But eventually, it happens every time. And at that point, the citizens, YOU, need weapons. Not for hunting or for sport or for collection, but for standing up for your fucking rights. + + +TheKeenMind: >Gun control means that when someone who's willing to break the law breaks into my house, I can't safely protect myself. + +In most cases, you can't anyway. + +>Accidents are completely negligible, they're basically statistically insignificant. + +Statistically insignificant, and actually insignificant are pretty different concepts. As stated before, *terrorism* is statistically insignificant. + +>There is a reason that the right to bear arms is the second amendment - that shit is important. + +Was, it was important. Back when dueling and slavery were also considered rights. It's archaic, a relic of a different time. +>some day it wont be like that, and there will eventually be blood. In our lifetime? Probably not. + +The truth of the matter is, our ability to do shit if the government turned against us tomorrow is not determined by the number of firearm enthusiasts we have, it's in the hands of those with access to the big military grade weapons that we can't buy anyway, i.e, foreign countries and military insubordinates. + +I don't believe that the possibility that something drastic like that is going to happen *someday* justifies the sizeable number of deaths and injuries guns cause." +"beetus_wrangler: How would this situation even occur? Would people even vote for someone who publicly stated that he or she didn't want to be president? And how is this any different from our current system? You're free to write in whatever candidate you'd like, including people who aren't actively running for office. (I'm assuming you're talking about the United States, BTW.) +lichorat: They would, but other people would campaign. Think a long term senator who is retiring, but people loved his last term. Now he must make good on his legacy because he's now president." +"Daedalus1907: Do you consider art a contribution to humanity or are you only talking science/technology? + +Art - Russia has some of the greatest writers and composers in history. Pushkin, Solzhenitsin, Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky, Modest Mussorgsky, etc. Russia also has a vast history of ballet and other dance which few countries can rival. + +Technology - The periodic table of elements is the first that comes to mind. However, you should look at [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_science) list to see some other achievements. The biggest barrier to Russian science and research is that it was isolated from other nations for so long so they could not build off the achievements of others. +NiffyLooPudding: Thanks for the reply. That's certainly an impressive list of scientists! I didn't realise there were that many, thanks for the link. + +With the Artists you mentioned- I'd still say that Russia has under-delivered in this area, though I'd admit this could just be up to personal taste as to what I do and don't like in the arts." +"huadpe: >without any inherent purpose, experience is the most important thing, and pleasurable experience being the greatest kind of experience, one should strive for that for themselves. + +This seems to depend a lot on how one defines a pleasurable experience. There is a lot about life that depends on overcoming adversity and challenges. Often people who have the maximum of material comforts and opportunities for hedonism experience miserable lives, especially if their comforts are not self-earned. + +I think you would be interested to read up on the [eudanomic theory of virtue ethics](http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH3a) which seems like a more compelling view about what actually makes for the best quality life. +ToriHatesNames: I guess my question concerning the eudanomic theory is this: where does this notion of virtue come from? Is it a kind of everlasting virtue that is beyond humans? Or is it constructed by people? If it is the latter, then it still seems to be that those standards of virtue could be superficial, and in that case not necessarily something to base your life around. If it is the former, I'm still not convinced there can be a notion of good outside of humanity. + +Also, I do think of pleasure in a subjective sense. While hedonism is generally a strive for material good and physical pleasures, I would take the term pleasure much more liberally and personally. Some people gain pleasure from those things, certainly. But some gain it from raising a family, or from helping the homeless, or whatever. I think as long as no one attempts to gain pleasure from hurting anyone, all of those are as valid as eachother. Basically, everyone would not be striving for the same objective pleasure, but for a personal subjective pleasure." +"setsumaeu: I don't disagree with you in theory, however I am not particularly comfortable with giving the power to any particular group of people to decide what is and what isn't news. I'm sure the lines are quite blurry when you really dig deep, if they miss one correction do they get their title stripped? What if you have a talk show on a news network, do they have the same standard? I can't speak for other countries, but I would not be comfortable with this system in the US because of the political climate. With a two party system where power shifts back and forth, I think giving anyone the ability to decide what can and can't call itself news creates a potentially bad situation. + +You've asked for us to prove what harm this could bring to the American people, I'd like to ask you what good it can bring. People tend to get their news from whatever they want, plenty of people rely on entertainment programs about the news (Daily show) or talk shows about the news (Rush limbaugh's show). If people care about the integrity of their news, why can't the public be trusted to self select what they should and shouldn't consume? +ilikedirigibles: If you read the full post it should be obvious: + +Per #4, A talk show on a news network has to be labeled as not news, and clearly wouldn't be subject to the must-not-lie rules, it just can't call itself a news program and air lies. And per #3 they can't air more than 50% non-news shows during primetime/earlytime or they can't call themselves a news organization. + +My point is, ""news"" has an inherent meaning in our society, it simply does, and calling yourself a news organization implies that what you say is true. You shouldn't be able to perpetuate FALSE information with impunity, and still call yourself a news organization. + +The good that it would do is to limit the false information, like saying that, for instance, the Affordable Care Act will create death panels, which is objectively false, or the like. Purposely misleading the public under the guise of being ""news"" should be illegal. + +It's not ""giving anyone the power to decide what can and can't call itself news"" -- it's simply targetted at objectively false information being purported as truth. + +Put simply, why is it ok that a trusted source of information lies?" +"binarysteen: I think you could also argue that, under the assumption/widely accepted belief that all humans are inherently of equal worth, then they should inherently have an equal opportunity to be successful in life (by some definition of success). While it is inevitable that half of a population will live below average and half will live above it, your race etc. should not determine this. For example, 65% of black children are born into low income families compared to 32% of white children ([source](http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1074.html)). Children who grow up in poverty are seven times more likely to drop out of school between the age of 16 and 24, not to mention become involved in a number of other activities that do not lead to productive, successful, or particularly happy lives. And then the cycle continues until it's kind of hard to keep pushing this idea that all people are of equal worth. + +It is certainly unreasonable to expect perfect equality. But it is not unreasonable to try and ameliorate the situation through social programs etc. Equality may be an unending battle, but it is one that is worth fighting so that a kid's path in the world isn't essentially predetermined before they're even born. +Saquatucket: You make a good point, and I do agree that all people should have equal opportunity to succeed. But why does the argument for giving low income children this opportunity need to be based on racial equality, or even take race into account? Is providing equal opportunity to succeed not enough in itself? Why should we even take race into account in the first place, since a black child in poverty is worth precisely the same as an a Asian, white, Native American, or any other?" +"devicerandom: >all I can think is that without the paragraph the ""art"" would be nothing more than a canvas, a pile of mud, a stick, or an unmade bed. + +All artistic endeavours, without observers and their interpretation, are pointless. A painting, per se, is nothing more than a canvas. The most beautiful Canova sculpture is nothing more than a pile of rock. Bach, objectively speaking, is just wacky vibrations through air. Kubrick movies are just patches of colour moving on a screen. That's what they are objectively. It's us, the observers, that give aesthetic and cultural meaning to them. Art means something only when someone interprets it and puts it in the right context. + +One can say that a Monet painting looks ""immediately"" nice to us, while a Fontana cut canvas doesn't. Yet, again, it is matter of context: paintings by Monet or Renoir looked ridicolous, grotesque and stupid to the average observer of that era, and even to some art critics (you can google about that). We are culturally used to find normal and even classic what, at Impressionists' time, was completely insane innovation, so we're not anymore finding them terrible. + +It is true that modern art requires some more effort and contextualization to be understood and appreciated. And it is true that a lot of modern art is terrible, but a lot of *all* art was terrible: we only don't know this because with hindsight we selected the best works and artists and forgot the others. We don't have the same hindsight here and now. +Gaddness: Ok, it makes a lot more sense to me from that point of view, not going to stop me from thinking that selling someone an unmade bed when they have one that probably looks even better at home, is actually good art, I understand what you're saying in that we don't have the right context, just as a child can't comprehend the beauty of countryside until they are told it is something that should be admired, as, up until that point, it's simply grass, rocks and trees. Some pieces of modern art I like, like theres some canvases that at first I didn't like, but after a while looked good, but I still don't think they're worth what they're sold for." +"Bluezephr: Meta's get established in any game, but in card games its very easy to see optimum strategies. As a result, in constructed you see really focused decks that are always going to be annoying. Zoolock, current mech cards, there will likely never be a utopia of strategy in a single block of hearthstone, just like in MTG. + + +A meta will always get figured out, and grow stale. The solution is an expansion. It shakes up the meta and throws a bunch of new strategies at players. Playing around a new expansion drop is probably the most fun time to play the game. + + +The game does benefit paying players in constructed a lot, but it's still a much more customer friendly than any traditional card game (Again, like MTG). I think it's awesome that it's entirely possible to play the game without monetary investment. + + +Thankfully, there is a solution built into the game for both of these problems: The arena! +theionicfox: It certainly is great that you are able to play without making a first time payment. My gripe is that in order to get ""good"", you HAVE to get good cards. Maybe this is an unavoidable problem, but as someone who has a strong passion for game design, I find the fact that skill is trumped by cards collection to be very unsettling. The situation is that someone can be the best Hearthstone player, but in order to rise in the ranks, they HAVE to get good cards. Legendaries and expansion cards are a MUST to get into high ranks. Again, maybe it is unavoidable, but it is discouraging to new players. + +I have always appreciated the fun-focused nature of arena, though. Tavern Brawl is also a nice addition for free players. Perhaps this is a game for them; for those who want to avoid ranked because of the prerequisites." +"n_5: There's a lot we don't understand about love, so I'm only speaking from personal experience when I say that I feel romantic attraction is different from platonic/sexual attraction. I have very good female friends with whom I love spending time and whom I find very attractive, but I'm for some reason not romantically attracted to them. It's a weird gut feeling when I am eventually romantically attracted to someone that's not really describable but goes beyond standard platonic and sexual desires. I'd describe romantic attraction as different from sexual attraction, even - my last crush was someone with whom I guess I would have slept had the opportunity arisen but for whom I fell because of non-sexual things (mostly because I felt really, really comfortable with her). I would describe my attraction to her less as ""I wanted to sleep with her"" and more ""I wanted to cuddle with her and talk."" It depends, obviously, but not everyone feels that way about romantic attraction. +Black_Gay_Man: But there must be some physical component (cuddling, kissing, etc), no?" +"Daedalus1907: 1) This is just your opinion. [Here is an article](http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/) that says 40 hour work week is the ""sweet spot"" where productivity declines afterwards. + +2 and 3) This is no reason to make it law, it just means some people need more flexible hours than others. Many work places already accommodate this. + +4) This wouldn't really solve anything. More people would have to take on second jobs and since it costs more to hire a new employee than it does to give an existing one more hours, most places wouldn't hire that many more employees. + +5) I have no idea why you think this would solve anything. Work places can already give shorter shifts to people. + +KuulGryphun: 1) Actually that article only discusses why *more* than 40 hours is a bad idea. It doesn't mention why fewer hours would be worse. Also of course its my opinion, this is CMV, not CYV. + +I think in the rest of your points you either didn't read my post or weren't really trying." +"spiffyzha: Can you clarify what you mean by ""using it for the most possible personal gain""? When people talk about checking your privilege, nobody is saying you shouldn't make the best possible use of whatever opportunities are available to you. The argument is more that you shouldn't try to get ahead by stepping on other people, because that's an asshole move. + +I imagine the only real reason you ""should"" care about checking your privilege--and working towards a society in which more people are afforded the privileges you enjoy--is if you care about other people. Of course nobody can make you care. Of course you can be as selfish as you like, and nobody can stop you. You *can* get farther in a lot of aspects in life by being a total ass to nearly everyone you come in contact with. + +But a lot of people have a desire to contribute something positive to the world. Other people simply realize that they'll be happier by thinking of others in terms of compassion and empathy, rather than in terms of how those people can be used. +Whytesmoke: >Can you clarify what you mean by ""using it for the most possible personal gain""? + +If you'd like a better idea of the advantages I'm implying, I would read one of those ""privilege checklists"". Pretty much everything on those lists is an issue I will almost certainly never have to deal with. + +And yeah, I realize that I'm bad and I should feel bad. I'm trying to work on that one." +"TryUsingScience: It depends heavily on how you view the people you hook up with and hookups in general. As well as your own place in society. + +If you view your partner as a living fleshlight whose feelings you don't care about at all, and you don't feel personally responsible for avoiding making the world a worse place, then no, you have no obligation. + +If you think a hook up is a mutually pleasurable experience with someone you care about at least enough to want them to be happy, you should care about their relationship because damaging it could make them much unhappier than hooking up with you will make them happy, and you're being a net negative in their life. + +If you think it might be your job as a decent human being to avoid creating needless strife then you shouldn't knowingly do something that will cause conflict in someone else's relationship, whether you care about the people involved or not. +RaggedyGentleman: I think that it is not my right to decide whether the other person wants to fuck up their relationships or not, and to take that right is selfish of me and not treating the other person like an adult. Now if the thought of messing up their relationship makes me uncomfortable, and I don't do it because I'm uncomfortable, that's a different story, but I don't think that its fair to decide how they live their life or what choices they make, and therefore I should act in self interest." +"Amarkov: >CDC numbers say that the flu shot is about 40 to 60 % effective, but how are they measuring that versus people who don't get the shot at all? + +With... statistics? I don't understand your question here. It's not hard to measure the rate of flu among people who get flu shots and people who do not get flu shots. + +>Not only that but the vaccines have mercury in them with is a known poison that doesn't leave your system easily (if at all). + +This is false. The vaccines have a mercury *compound* in them, which is not a poison and leaves your system very easily. +suddenly_ponies: > With... statistics? I don't understand your question here. It's not hard to measure the rate of flu among people who get flu shots and people who do not get flu shots. + +~~It's not as if this is a laboratory experiment. What about these people's environment? Habits? Diet? How can you look at this as scientific?~~ Nevermind. Apparently the CDC is using scientific studies after all. I haven't looked at them so I won't try to make this point at this time. + +> This is false. The vaccines have a mercury compound in them, which is not a poison and leaves your system very easily. + +So why does the [FDA recommend against the use of Themerisol](http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/UCM070430)? + +> During the past ten years, FDA has provided informal and formal advice to manufacturers recommending that new vaccines under development be formulated without thimerosal as a preservative. + +So the majority of the article says it doesn't have any detectable harmful effects, but still... why the recommendation?" +"TOUCHER_OF_SHEEP: In general, most crimes wouldn't be criminal if they were done with the full consent of the ""victim."" Murder is illegal, obviously, but things like beating them are completely okay legally- it's called bondage. Stealing with consent is impossible- that negates the ""theft"" part of it- and arson will only be illegal in cases of damaging or potentially damaging others persons or property accidentally (ie if you burn someone's house down and the fire spreads to the next house over, killing someone or destroying all of their stuff). +unloufoque: I do not think this is true. The Prosecutor is the one who decides whether to bring charges or not, not the victim. So, if A beats B because that's how B likes to have sex, a Prosecutor can charge A for assault/battery even though B would not want that result. An example of this would be a Prosecutor bringing suit against a husband for beating his wife, even though the wife does not want the suit brought. (Note that this situation may preclude consent to the beatings actually being given.)" +"cleansoap: Being as you don't know how the human Freddie Gray would have acted outside the horrific environment of West Baltimore what I hear you saying is that it is ok to judge (if not condemn) humans who may only be victims of their circumstances. People do what they need to do to survive the pressures they find themselves under. Unless you know the circumstances of one's life I'm not sure calling someone a ""scummy piece of criminal shit"" for a list of non-violent drug dealing charges demonstrates much understanding of the real world. I rather strongly believe it is an attempt to impose some sort of unilateral moral framework onto an environment in which it can be pragmatically shown not to work. + +You should change your view because the only backing one can have for such a view is ignorance. Maybe he is a scummy piece of criminal shit, maybe he isn't. But you don't have any real objective information, not enough to draw a sound conclusion at least. So by holding such a view you're telling the world and telling yourself that judgment based on shitty data is OK. I don't believe that's the sort of person you want to be. + + + +Whytesmoke: If it is impossible to know how Gray would have acted had he not lived in Baltimore, doesn't it stand to reason that he would've been doing the same things he had been doing prior to his death? We can't know what kind of person he might have become, but we know what kind of person he was. And, as I've said elsewhere, saying that his charges were non-violent is blatant misinformation. + +Why is the only backing I can have for the view ignorance? Is this because you and I have different moral and ethical standards? I find that point of reasoning to be infantilizing to me, at least in the sense that I feel that you think I am incapable of coming to my own assessment of the situation, and that even if I was, that assessment is wrong because you take issue with it. + +The fact of the matter is that we do have objective information. Gray's criminal record has been released, and it shows a very clear pattern of behavior. If Gray really was a good person, why didn't he ever try to leave, or stop dealing drugs, or any other number of alternate courses? Do you believe that Gray was incapable of being a criminal of his own accord?" +"notdomoduro: I think you're arguing against a bit of a straw man here. I don't think that many people believe that others should be judged on their wealth, fame, attractiveness, or whatever instead of on the moral and personal character. + +The problem is that it's much more difficult to find out a person's character than to find out more ""superficial"" things about them, especially when people have a clear incentive to make themselves look more moral than they actually are. +convoces: >I don't think that many people believe that others should be judged on their wealth, fame, attractiveness, or whatever instead of on the moral and personal character. + +I don't think this is a straw man at all. I am sure I can find some people who believe in the idea that the ""end justifies the means."" + +For example, though this has been discussed a lot: Steve Jobs, by many accounts, was not a very moral person, [screwing his partner Wozniak out of thousands of dollars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Early_life_and_career) and initiating/participating in wage fixing collusion of his own employees/team. + +However, it is indisputable that he is greatly admired and **judged** for his fame, wealth, and professional accomplishments. + +I am sure there are many more examples of highly admired, successful people who are also not very moral and lots of people who judge them highly." +"PerturbedPlatypus: Is your CMV about the narrow statement that the Real GDP of China will be larger than that of the USA within about 20-30 years, or about the consequences of China surpassing the USA? + +I don't disagree with your narrow statement, but I don't think that passing that point will have much effect on the world. +CosmicCam: More so the real GDP. I've been studying China in a foreign economics class and I think China would soon surpass the United States, though a lot of people I talked to about it don't think it will happen and that the US will stay on top. No one really had any valid reasons though." +"10gags: what would you do with the large minorities in the regions who end up in countries they don't want to be in? forced transfer? genocide? + +why not just allow more freedom to local and state governments instead of breaking up the most powerful nation in the world into 4 or 5 shitty countries? + + +to change your view i offer you a better option, +allow more local control and less federal control and let each do as they wish to a certain extent while maintaining a constitution that enforces the rights of minorities, personal beliefs and property, and government oversight (kind of like the constitution we have now) + + + +it is a myth that you would be doing the world a favor by taking apart the most powerful country in the world. Considering we tend not to overtly abuse our powers and for the most part respect the rule of law compared to our next nearest competitors. + +Do you think china or Russia unconcerned about the USA would be such neighborly people to have around? + + +Coalitions don't work nearly as well as unified countries. best to keep us the way we are and next time vote for more state power and less federal power in your local and federal elections + + + +DemosKratos: I would argue that your solution is what got us into the situation we are in to begin with. What is the dividing line here? 151 years ago we fought a civil war over this issue. Should the South have been able to keep slaves? Should they be able to make access to abortion limited despite the ruling of Roe v. Wade today? This is what prompts federal intervention and with 50 states, it will continue to do so in order to provide a basic standard across all the states. + +It would be best to let the U.S. separate into groups that hold more in common with each other. + +Why all the fear mongering over Russia? They have enough problems controlling areas in their own territory, and should the U.S. dissipate, I don't see them suddenly invading Europe. Why would they all the sudden become aggressive to Europe? + +As I mentioned in another post, China may decide to scoop up Taiwan, but that would likely be it. An attack against Japan would be incredibly costly. I find an altercation between Russia and China to be most likely, seeing that China's growing fields are turning to desert, while the permafrost in Siberia is beginning to thaw and man, that soil will be rich! + +Don't forget, the biggest deterrent the U.S. has is it's nuclear arsenal. Those would not be going anywhere even if we do split. " +"NaturalSelectorX: > It takes 13 lbs of grain to produce 1lb of beef. Meanwhile, almost 3 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population. + +How many pounds of food does it take per 1lb of cat or dog meat? Food isn't free just because there are *currently* strays. + +Additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened. Just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 10 lbs, it doesn't equal 10lbs of meat. You will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that. Shelter animals are pretty lean. + +> Poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries. We have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, + +The people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does. Furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another. Quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution. + +> Grind up the meat and I'm willing to bet 75% of the people eating it could not tell the difference. + +Debatable. + +Your haven't really made a case *for* eating cats and dogs. The big difference is that cats and dogs *also need meat* to grow and survive. So now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat. Why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them? +SkylarShankman: >How many pounds of food does it take per 1lb of cat or dog meat? Food isn't free just because there are currently strays. + +My solution doesn't require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant (and yearly) 3 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year. I'm not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix. Supplementing it. + +>The people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does. Furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another. Quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution. + +The whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows aren't enough and here we have 3 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using. There wouldn't be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who couldn't afford food previously. + +>Your haven't really made a case for eating cats and dogs. The big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive. So now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat. Why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them? + +The cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive. There is no extra work required. Every year the animals are put down, all I'm suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them. + +The case FOR eating them would be simply, why wouldn't we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway?" +"asshatnowhere: I don't think ceasing beef consumption is the way to go, rather changing farming methods might make the whole deal more efficient and more ethical for the animals. also we would have to take into account that if we all stop eating beef, what would take it's place? would we see a huge boom in other meat production? what effects would that have? +sevensongs: I disagree. A cow still needs a comparatively high amount of land, water, food, etc that we can't change. Beef demand is increasing rapidly as living standards for people around the world grows. We will need to pool even more resources into beef production in the future, and as of now, we are already overproducing it. The logical solution would be to not eat beef - or to eat much less. + +A huge boom in pork, chicken, or even a less meat-intensive diet, will obviously have undesirable effects initially. But in the long run we'd have more food while being more efficient with our resources usage. + +" +"SemideL: > Fiction merely provides entertainment. It doesn't help us grow at all. + +I think you should define what you mean by ""growing"" here. Do you mean a specific kind of development? If yes, in what direction? What skills should we develop or what form of progress should we pursue instead of enjoying entertainment media? + +> Why waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves? + +Such as? Isn't every form of relaxation ""entertainment"" by definiton? + +> Is fiction truly of some use? + +I would argue yes: Fiction, despite being fictional, can still be as useful for intellectual stimulation as traditional education. Here are some examples: + + * Video games like ""This War of mine"" try to offer a perspective of struggling civilians in a war-torn country for those lacking first-hand experience of war. + + * The novel ""Animal Farm"" can convey a basic understanding of political and sociolgical development of capitalistic societies into autocratic dictatorships. + + * Reading classical German poetry, like the famous works of Goethe, can complement a historical education about Central Europe in the 18th and 19th century, as well as giving insight into moral and cultural ideas prevalent during that time. + +As I tried to point out, the distinction between ""waste of time"" and ""effective use of time"" isn't that clearly cut. +IWillNotLie: >Do you mean a specific kind of development? + +I'm mostly referring to development of intelligence and/or knowledge. + +>Isn't every form of relaxation ""entertainment"" by definiton? + +By relaxation, I mean meditating, sleeping, taking a stroll in the park, or taking a contemplative bath. + +>I would argue yes: Fiction, despite being fictional, can still be as useful for intellectual stimulation as traditional education. Here are some examples: + +>* Video games like ""This War of mine"" try to offer a perspective of struggling civilians in a war-torn country for those lacking first-hand experience of war. +>* The novel ""Animal Farm"" can convey a basic understanding of political and sociolgical development of capitalistic societies into autocratic dictatorships. +>* Reading classical German poetry, like the famous works of Goethe, can complement a historical education about Central Europe in the 18th and 19th century, as well as giving insight into moral and cultural ideas prevalent during that time. + +But these aren't as effective as reading or watching commentaries by experts on these subjects, are they? + +>As I tried to point out, the distinction between ""waste of time"" and ""effective use of time"" isn't that clearly cut. + +But, if you aren't using your time in the most efficient way possible, aren't you wasting it? That's how I see it. Am I wrong?" +"Targren: ""Right on red"", when it's allowed, is primarily because you're going from the innermost lane TO the intersecting innermost lane: there's only one lane of moving traffic to worry about (the one you're turning into). + +If there's an ""outer right"", then you have to turn into the 2nd lane of the intersecting road and that triples the number of lanes to be concerned about (two lanes on the intersecting road, PLUS the inner right). + +And since I'm in your neck of the woods (I've spent way too much time waiting for that same damn light), consider this part, too: this part of the state is infamous for asshat drivers blocking people from turning, changing lanes, etc... could you imagine the chaos? :D +qkf: Er, the image I posted, I found on Google images. + +It may triple the number of lanes to be concerned about, but one of them shouldn't usually be a problem if people stay in their lanes. And the other two, you still have to look in the same direction." +"HalfBurntToast: Well, I would say that there has to be an end to the game if you're going the non-violent route as much as possible. True, in real life, the 'game' doesn't stop after a cultural victory. It could just be a way to balance the game and give smaller civilizations, who have no chance at a military or political victory, a reason to keep playing. + +I would argue, in this sense, that interpretations by the citizens is the key. This is kind of removed from reality, in that the game seems to have these eternal, immortal leaders that seem to control everything without much internal or political influence. In that sense, if such a person was to exist and was able to raise a civilization out of the dirt and accomplish these amazing feats, I could see why they might want to place that person in a place of leadership indefinitely. It's hard to say how realistic that would be because it doesn't happen in reality. + +Who knows, maybe after so many feats, citizens of the world start to see you as more of a God or religious figurehead. +Thefishlord: See I believe that the end should be you left your mark on history and civilization to come will look up to you and learn from you. You would still win but not become the world king basically. " +"DeathlyAcorn: I don't understand your point you're making. People don't use the word ""racism"" to mean all of those things. When they say ""racism"" they generally mean something regarding race. All of those other terms you used are specific to what they intend to describe. + +Oddly enough, there's even a catch all term for discrimination without being specific. + +It's ""discrimination"". +oshaboy: i guess my actual problem is that no one talks about discrimination in general. and i blamed the term itself for it." +"QuantumTangler: If anything enjoyable makes other things less enjoyable, then that would be an argument not against video games but a happy life in general, no? And if enjoyable things only make themselves less enjoyable, then that's still not an argument against video games - all it says is that after playing the same game for a long time it will get boring. +Miguelinileugim: You got it, every activity is literally as fun as any other, yet some activities are more useful than others. That's why videogames are a bad thing, because they're useless! + +Also note that I think that a larger variety of happiness sources can actually make you happier, a person with ambitions, love and sexuality is going to be happier than someone who just plays videogames all day for example!" +"Serang: A couple of disagreeing points: + +To your first point, the skill you describe is more diversity than anything. It's specialization. If anything, I would argue it takes more skill and difficulty to be able to master multiple functions at once compared to footballers who each have 1 specific function to master. + +For example, linemen ONLY have to be big and learn how to block and ""wrestle"" but a shooting guard has to know how to dribble, shoot, set up screens, etc , etc. + +In order to be on an NBA team, arguably, you have to be elite at multiple skills rather than a few specific ones. IMO, this translates to more skilled players. + +To your second point, I believe the starting and stopping cannot simply be ignored. In terms of physicality, constantly being in play takes a toll on the human body in the form of cardio and endurance and this is an athletic feat. In other words, it's the argument of whether it takes more athleticism to be a long distance runner or a sprinter. On this point, I think it's just a tie. They're separate sports and I don't think any one can be objectively declared better than the other. However, I will add that as a sport, the stopping time is incredibly boring. + +To your third point, there are a variety of plays that can be executed in football but I think the starting and stopping nature of the game detracts greatly from this. In football, you have time to plan and consult your coach before pretty much every other play. In basketball, players make split second decisions on plays and strategies which imo takes more skill and sports intelligence. +JayYesBe: I agree with you that basketball players (and players in most other sports really) are more well-rounded than football players; that is significant. I don't know if the skills required in basketball (shooting, dribbling, setting picks, etc.) are more or less difficult to master than the ones in football. I'd have to be sold on that. + +I strongly disagree on the athleticism front. I agree with you that the sprinting/distance debate is a bad debate. But this isn't that debate. Basketball and most other continually moving sports require more cardio endurance than football. But football requires a degree of cardio endurance AND a great deal of muscle exertion AND enduring pain and trauma. + +I also disagree that the stopping detracts from the strategy, but this may be a more subjective thing. I personally think the stopping gives football strategy an amazing complexity and depth. I agree that in basketball the split-second decision making is more challenging for the players, but basketball teams switch between only a handful of formations and run a handful of plays from those formations. + +I played basketball and think it's a great sport, but it's a less impressive athletic feat than football. +" +"matthewrozon: There are lots of people who are fat because they lack the willpower to eat less and exercise more. You're right about that. But there are many other reasons why people get fat. + +1. Can't afford healthy food. If you have 2$ are you going to buy a head of lettuce or 2 mcdoubles? + +2. Don't have access to healthy food. There are these food deserts where only fast food is available. + +3. No time to plan or make food. So many Americans pride themselves on being ""workaholics"" like it's a good thing to work 80hours a week to live the dream. If you're working that much, plus commute, plus sleep, plus hygiene, where is the time to plan, shop for, and make healthy meals. + +4. Misinformation. The diet/fitness industry preys on people who don't know how to or won't research. Most people who diet will end up putting on more weight than they lost after the diet ends. The only real way to lose weight is to permanently change your lifestyle so that calories in < calories out but there isn't a lot of money in that. + +5. Genetics/Disorders. A small amount of people who are overweight/obese have disorders that make it extremely hard to lose weight or to not gain weight. Then there are people whose genes put them at a disadvantage, sure plenty of people stay thin even if their body stores more fat than someone else but couple bad genes in addition to a lack in willpower or any of these other reasons and you have a recipe for disaster. + + +Lastly, concentrating on overweight/obese is important. One thing that really surprised me however is that using the BMI definitions, being overweight did not correlate to a higher incidence of heart disease or cardiac problems when compared to normal weight. So really ""overweight"" in terms of BMI anyway isn't that bad. Also BMI sucks as an indicator of body weight. +skulgun: Point 1: OK, but rice and beans is a thing. If a person doesn't have a kitchen, then I guess this rolls into point 2. + +Point 3: This is an unavoidable problem for some people. However, it seems to me that given the same environment, there always seem to be people who make time for what they need to do and people that don't. I understand ""making time"" is impossible, it just seems like that is how things turn out. + +> won't research + +Point 4: Doesn't this support my point? + +I accept your caveats, but I guess I am talking about people who live in privilegeland to which none of them apply. + + + +" +"Bodoblock: >I'm not saying that economists can't predict anything, just that they don't have their predictions down to a science like they claim to. + +I think you're operating under a faulty assumption. I have yet to meet an economist who can say with certainty that they can predict the future of an economy. + +Economists work with models. Models, by their very definition, are limited as they only take in a certain number of variables. + +Certainly the models will try to be as inclusive as possible but they have their clear and obvious limitations. + +Using these models, economists can make predictions, estimations, recognize current trends, examine historical trends, etc. But you'll find it hard to come across many economists who will claim they can get their predictions of any industry or economy 100% down to a tee like a science. + +They're not fortune tellers. They're making educated, well-reasoned forays into the future when they make predictions. But they're certainly not going to be perfect like a science and the overwhelming majority of economists would not claim that they are. +economistsarepsychic: >I think you're operating under a faulty assumption. I have yet to meet an economist who can say with certainty that they can predict the future of an economy. + +and + +>Economists work with models. Models, by their very definition, are limited as they only take in a certain number of variables. + +Economists themselves might not think they can predict things 100% accurately, but people seem to treat their predictions like they are accurate, and investors make major decisions based on these predictions. I'm not an economist, so I don't know if this is right or not, but a lot of the models seem to predict the future based on past/present patterns. + +For example, if a country is running out of coal at a steady rate, a model may predict that that country will not be able to manufacture as much as they used to be able to(due to a lack of fuel to power the factories). Or it may predict that they find a more efficient way to use that coal, and delay the process. But the models won't be able to predict that country figuring out that oil (or something similar to that), which they previously thought was useless, can be used as a supplement to coal." +"Cheeseboyardee: Honestly the difficulty in prosecution would be enough to make this an issue. + +Next is the question of who decides what is the ""truth"". Centuries of study were contradicted in an extremely short time by scientific advances, many of which were labeled as ""lies"" when they were first published. + +Is the inaccuracy due to intent or ignorance? + +How many inaccuracies would result in a book being banned? + +It would be too easy to circumvent, and prosecution would lend credence to the lies. +SexualPie: Thats a fair point, and I probably should have included it in the OP. + +It is definitely difficult to point out specific falsehoods, especially if the book is scattered true false true false. I would argue that if a (debatable) large point of the book focuses on an (undeniably) falsehood than the book gets flagged atleast. maybe a sticker or a disclaimer on it. banning the book, or fining the author would be bad idead, but a disclaimer saying something like ""Not everything withing is guaranteed accurate"" or something would be good." +"YossarianWWII: That inevitability is kind of the point. The real skill in Monopoly comes into play in the mid-game, when you have properties and money to trade but there isn't a clear winner yet. You have to set yourself up to win, to survive once people start putting up hotels. Even after that, when you're taking big hits, there's the negotiation aspect. I've found that a lot of people don't take advantage of this, but you can pay rent with anything as long as the person who owns the property accepts it. Rather than mortgaging all of your properties, trade some of them away. The game isn't about paying rent, it's about wheeling and dealing your way to success. +Iprefervim: My family and I do the trading when it comes down to it, but because our games last so long that is usually only used as a last ditch effort when we've run out of money (which is usually temporary)" +"spiffyzha: > We don't talk about ""suicide culture"" nearly as much as we lament rape culture. + +Because I'm a terrible person: Suicide culture is really kind-of a self-correcting problem, y'know? + +But for clarity: Do you believe that rape culture isn't a thing that exists, or just that rape jokes of the form you describe aren't a problem? What about a different class of rape jokes, in which someone makes mention of a woman they dislike, and then says something to the effect of, ""what she needs is for a man to take her out in a back alley, hold her down and have his way with her."" With a grin perhaps, so you can tell that it's definitely a joke. +omashupicchu: To answer your question, I'm a little on the fence about rape culture. I'm tempted to say it doesn't exist any more than a culture of violence in general, which again, I wouldn't call a culture. + +People like to live vicariously through violent movies and games but this doesn't mean that they would necessarily do these things or condone them in real life. Likewise, I don't think there is any compelling evidence that suggests that making these jokes perpetuates, among the people who say them or the people who hear them, a cavalier attitude towards rape that happens in real-life. + +Your example does make me hesitate, however. + +I would say that it's not that much kinder than saying, ""Someone needs to kick that jerk's ass,"" or something to that effect. Beating someone up is awful and the prospect of getting the shit kicked out of you is terrifying, no matter who you are. + +Again, though, it's something that many people talk about but never actually do. If we take that to be casual venting, then, I don't know. I think the expression about someone needing to ""have his way with her"" is ugly and not one that I would ever use or ever want to hear but I honestly don't know. + +I just find it difficult to reconcile the way we normalize some violent expressions but find that others retain their ability to revolt us. Any thoughts on that? " +"Snafu_Coaxer_2013: I defend Zoe, but not because I think she is a 'good person'. Simply, I defend her because I think most of the attacks on her character are in bad faith. + +While this doesn't apply to all people, a lot of the backlash against her recently seems to be inseparable from either anti-feminist sentiment or misogyny. People believe claims about Zoe Quinn based on evidence that they wouldn't take seriously about any person who they took seriously to begin with, and people always seem to bring up unrelated ideas, like social justice, in criticizing her. So I think it's reasonable to defend her from criticism that's unfair. +edmiborn: I can understand that. A lot of the criticism does seem to be rooted in misogyny. Which is ridiculous. + +That being said, there's also a lot of valid criticism out there. The fact that some of the attacks on her have been sexist in nature does not mean that there are not other valid criticisms." +"Lluxx: How would this new legislation benefit the government (particularly) or the general population? + +>If birth is not recognized until the birth certficate has been filed then parents can decide to discard damaged or unwanted babies which would be a legal abortion instead of an illegal murder. + +There would be a public outcry at that. Most laws are pretty much designed to prevent or reduce human suffering where possible. As babies can suffer, I can't see many people considering it morally acceptable to kill them. Plus, if it's no longer murder, how does this relate to other laws regarding treatment of fellow humans? Can babies be tortured before their birth certificates are signed? Raped? Scarred or mutilated? + +To legalise such a thing would pretty much go against the entire reason we have laws. Abortion is already legal in plenty of places (and can be campaigned for if it's not); if someone does not want a baby, they can have an abortion. If they birth the child and still don't want it, they can give it up for adoption. With these laws in place, it's unecessary to kill off unwanted babies and thus nobody would support it or support a government that wanted it. + +>Fathers could opt out of child support by not signing the birth certicate. The number of single parent households would drop because the baby would not have been born until both parents sign the birth certificate. Until the baby has been born, the birth certificate filed, it would not be a citizen. + +I'm aware that child support laws are debated at the moment, but I'm not going to get into that right now apart from to say this situation would benefit nobody except the few fathers who don't want to be fathers. Let's imagine that suddenly a lot of men have a way to not support their children (or vice versa, assuming the mother is also allowed to give up her parental rights in the same way). This then means there's a lot of single mothers who need more help to raise children. Where are they going to get that help from? The government, because I can't see developed countries shrugging and saying that children and mothers need to starve on the streets. That means more taxpayer money to support one-parent children. Therefore this is harmful both to the government and the population. + +Or, to go even further, say that the father agrees to pay child support throughout the pregnancy, but when the baby is born he goes back on this agreement. Let's assume the mother is also allowed to refuse to sign the birth certificate and now does so because she doesn't want to be burdened with a child with only her to support it. What happens to be baby now? We've already discussed that post-birth abortions aren't going to happen, so we just have even more children using the taxpayers' money, which - once again - is beneficial to nobody but a very slim minority of parents. + +[Edit: Also, to say 'the number of single parent households would drop' is like the police saying 'thefts have dropped' because they've been calling everything lost property. The babies are still there and still need to be provided for, not recognising them doesn't change that apart from making the stats misleading.] + +>Cases of misattributed paternity could be eliminated by requiring a paternity test before the father could sign the birth certificate. Prenatal genetic testing can identify paternity as an incidental finding. Birth certificates would identify the parents of the child and not the people intending to raise it so anonymous sperm and egg donation would be illegal. + +For most people, there's no need to require anything, so this would just be needless paperwork that would get in the majority's way, not to mention - once again - expensive to fund. In cases where a paternity test is desired, the parents can already get one without needing all this extra legislation. + +Furthermore, how would this even work? Would there be a time frame to sign the certificate? Could parents keep the kid but kill it off if they got bored after a few years? Could a forgetful parent accidently prevent their kid from becoming a citizen? The whole thing just seems ridiculously impractical to me. + +Essentially, this proposal would be very expensive to fund (laws aren't simple and take a lot of work), is actively harmful to humans and thus immoral, would provide slim-to-no benefits for the majority of people, whilst making them pay for it, and is generally unnecessary considering that abortions are already a thing, as are adoptions. +krausyaoj: It would reduce the number of children without the support of two parents. Those babies where the parents don't sign the birth certicate woud be destroyed. There would be an exception if one of the parents died but DNA was able to confirm the relationship. + +The public outcry would be similar to that now concerning abortion. Babies no more suffer from death than animals as they lack an understanding of life. The treatment of babies before they are legally born would be similar to that of other animals. + +Requiring both parents to sign and support the baby would reduce single parent households lessening the public burden. If either parent refuses to sign the birth certificate it is destroyed so as to not be a burden. + +The parents would need to have a birth certicate before they could take the child from the hospital because they would not be recognized as its parents. + +A paternity test only costs about $100 and many prenatal genetic tests include paternity as an incidental finding. + +The opposition to infanticide is due to our religious heritage and the effects it had on our culture. As religion declines I hope that support for infanticide increases and it will be legal again as it was in Roman times." +"k4m414: I think the simplest way to describe it, is an arrogant person is only happy in being right if the other person is wrong. Simply knowing the correct answer is not enough, they have to prove that you DON'T know it, therefore making them bigger, better, more intelligent, etc. Their self worth and value is only in purposefully making you lower than them, by pointing out your flaws and their good qualities. + +Whereas: a confident person knows the correct answer, and that is good enough for them. There is a sense of ""humbleness and modesty"" that is tied in with simply being confident. After a test, they don't run over to you and ask what score you think you got just so they can say ""well I think I got a 100."" + +So if a person has low confidence, I think a truly confident person would be sensitive to that. Instead of using their low confidence to make themselves feel better, they would want to help the person and bring them up to their level of confidence, so they could share things more easily. + +If you aren't an arrogant ass, there's nothing worse than rambling off your list of achievements to someone you know is doing worse than you. It just feels bad. If you are an arrogant ass, nothing feels better. + +Another point then, I think confident people surround themselves with other confident people to create a healthy network of support, whereas arrogant people surround themselves by insecure people in order to make themselves feel better. +LXXXVI: Hmm, I don't know, what you call arrogant I'd call simply an ass (which you did too). + +What about when there's a debate about something between two people, one is right and knows he's right and won't stop pressing their point. The other (who is wrong in this case but doesn't know he's wrong) will likely perceive the first as being arrogant, even though the first is right and could simply be confident and not ready to yield for peace's sake?" +"NaturalSelectorX: The only ""moral"" reason you have listed is that animals suffer throughout their lives before being butchered. What if they don't suffer? What if they graze happily in a field until someone sneaks up on them and provides a painless death? They probably had a much better life in the safety of the pasture than trying to live out in the wild. + +The ""consumes more water, food, etc"" only means it's inefficient, and I don't think efficiency of food is a good moral argument. There are many non-meat products that take many more resources to grow; do you oppose those as well? +digitalx3r0: That scenario is so rare it's not worth considering. All animals desire to live and be free. + +""We could free the slaves, but they're so uneducated they wouldn't make it in life. Therefore owning a black man's life is justifiable, and really, just makes sense"" + +If you can show me food sources that take up as many resources as beef or other meats, I will look into reducing intake or eliminating. I avoid palm oil for this reason" +"Kirkaine: I generally only read in whole chapters, making it a simple matter for me to remember what page I was up to. I highlight and take notes along the way, making it even easier. + +Reading in whole chapters is the way to go. You don't listen to an album and pause half way through a song, do you? The chapter divisions are there for a reason. Each chapter should be considered its own atomic unit, one coherent item to be considered as a whole. Start reading in whole chapters and you'll never need a bookmark again. + +As for taking notes, all your method does is leave you as a low-resolution copy of the author. The way to get smarter is to read lots of books, and see how they link together. Get a notebook and keep all your notes in the one place, rather than a mess of scraps of paper that will just get lost. +RustyRook: > Reading in whole chapters is the way to go. + +It's often not possible to do this. For example, when I read on the bus or on a train. + +I often read books that I borrow from the library, so I can't highlight them as I go. It does sound like a good idea, and I use a similar method myself. Some of my books have specific annotations that are helpful to me. " +"wumbotarian: >With no capable people in the sphere of science or economics, they cannot develop the system needed to reach the standard of living found in the Nordic Countries, North America or Western Europe. + +So brain drain is an issue, but that doesn't mean that the above is true. There's a lot of literature out there about development and growth theory, and it is not as if the governments of those countries cannot solicit advice from economists overseas about good policies. + +Those governments can indeed pursue policies, if they so choose, to help the country develop. They could put incentives in place to retain people, if brain drain is actually an issue. +mahaanus: How can one pursue policies when the capable engineers and scientists are in the developed West? How can they build prosperous companies, if the people who can build and maintain them are going out-of-country? + +Overseas companies usually invest in cheap labor only and once living wages go above a certain point, they pack up and leave for greener pastures. Or use other means to maintain a low-standard of living. " +"RustyRook: In your ideal society, do people still have bad habits u/Kush_McNuggz? Do they smoke? Do they take reasonable care of their diet and exercise? + +I'm asking because when you say that, ""You shouldn't be punished because you were unlucky enough to develop cancer or be born with a blood disease,"" it's also true that not everyone who gets cancer is unlucky. People are often irresponsible and their actions have a severe effect on healthcare costs. Those people who smoke, don't exercise, etc. are more likely to require expensive medical interventions. + +I absolutely agree with you that both education and healthcare are very important and do require public investment because they provide valuable benefits, but some of your logic is flawed. Is it really fair for those who do take care of their health to sacrifice future resources that they may require because someone who doesn't have good habits requires more resources? +Kush_McNuggz: how do you define good habits though? You may think someone who smokes has a bad habit. But I would argue the guy who gets 3 hours of sleep because he's constantly working is just as bad as a liability. Medically speaking, we know very little about the human body. We have learned a lot, but there is so much more to learn. + +As of now, person A can't definitively say they live a better lifestyle than everyone else. A vegan would say they live healthier than someone who is obese. Are we sure about that yet? + +Also, medicine is not just physical. What about the people who work out every day but suffer from anxiety and depression and need daily medication?" +"help-Im-alive: So what do you mean by cocktails? If they have Manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them. But if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar. I used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who wasn't a twat who watched too much Mad Men ordered one of your ""classic cocktails."" + +The point is, it's all very contextual to the bar. Some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them. Other bars, most people don't know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy. There's no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks. Maybe you're just in the wrong bar. +Raintee97: If you stand in front of a bar and are a paid bartender you should know how to make the classic drinks. It is kind of your job. There should be some level of pride in your work. Even if you work in a divey college town bar you should still know the classics. They aren't hard to make. " +"BenIncognito: She was a prolific artist who touched a lot of people. What else do you want? I can't make you appreciate poetry for what it is, I can't make you appreciate someone's words ( especially if you just view them as ""left wing propaganda""). All I can do is tell you that she was influential and successful in her craft. + +Who do you consider a great artist and why? +WikiTease: I completely understand that people can be extremely talented in things that I personally don't find all that interesting. Usually when that happens I have enough of an open mind to appreciate the talent for what it is. I just don't know what about her specifically is particularly praiseworthy. + +I've admitted that I am no poetry expert, but I have been exposed to poetry that I have appreciated. When I read ""The Raven"" in highschool I was particularly impressed. It seemed like Poe could effortlessly wrestle with the language and make and make it do his bidding. I was involved in a production of Romeo and Juliet last summer and was absolutely amazed at the wordplay. + +Maya Angelou's poetry just seems like low-effort stream of consciousness stuff that is only being praised because of the underlying political message. " +"oldspice75: In the US there are about 800 million guns floating around, more than 2 for each person. How do you expect the police to control crime, dealing constantly with armed criminals, if they are unarmed? Who would be a police officer if that means being an unarmed man facing into the criminal's gun? An ""extreme case"" can happen at any moment and it won't wait for someone else to come back later. +VisionChaos: Why do they need lethal weapons? There's an abundance of tools in the marketplace that can disarm someone brandishing a lethal weapon. + +" +"GnosticGnome: Frivolous has a very limited meaning, and this lawsuit does not qualify. To be frivolous, a lawsuit must have no merit. But here, McDonald's deliberately set the temperature of their coffee to one that could cause tissue damage (>110 degrees F). Had they set that coffee to a temperature under 110, it would be highly unlikely that any damage would have ensued. So they are at least partially at fault in any scald injury. Liebeck did indeed suffer a scald injury, and she did so by exposure to hot McDonald's coffee. With those elements satisfied (McDonald's had a duty to safeguard its customers, it took an action that conflicted with that duty, she suffered injury, and the injury was caused by McDonalds' action), the case is not frivolous. + +We might want to live in a world in which coffee can be served above 110F without fear of lawsuits. I happen to enjoy McDonald's coffee. That desire doesn't change the definition of frivolous, however. +callmesaul8889: You're right. I messed up by using the word frivolous. " +"huadpe: There are a few reasons not to do this: + +**It is flagrantly unconstitutional.** + +The Constitution sets forth the exact requirements to stand for election to the House and Senate. For the House, you must: + +* Be 25 years old; + +* Have been a citizen for 7 years; and + +* Be a resident of the state from which you're elected. + +Under our constitutional tradition, adding anything to that list requires an amendment to the Constitution. + +**It has worked very badly in past historical circumstances** + +A move like this was a big part of why the French Revolution was unable to become a successful republic, and ended up with successive violent overthrows. The initial National Assembly passed a ""self denying ordinance"" which declared that no National Assembly member would be allowed to serve in the newly created Legislative Assembly. That basically kicked out all the leaders who were most prominent in French politics, and left the new assembly rudderless and without the trust of the people necessary to keep from giving in to popular, but dumb, demands. That's how they ended up at war with Austria, which was a really big mistake. + +**This will make the problems you're trying to fix worse** + +The last thing you want to fix gridlock are visionaries. Visionaries refuse to compromise. They have ideals. That's why the Republican caucus in the House has such trouble passing things, even with a majority, they have a hard core of 30-40 newer members who just won't compromise. And their members from more vulnerable districts can't vote for the crazy right-wing stuff (like privatizing Medicare) because it's super unpopular in their districts. + +If you want to fix gridlock, bring back earmarks so you can buy votes to get compromise legislation passed. +toksinmafs: Unconstitutional: Being a one-time event, I believe adjudication against the measure would have no effect except perhaps to prevent its iteration again in the future. Also if there were enough support for it, I believe that the Necessary and Proper Clause would be a significant defense in favor of the act. Additionally, I imagine the unconstitutionality argument could be used also to prevent legislation against campaign finance reform, however such measures have been accepted in the past. This made me think, but it does not change my view. + +Interesting about the French Revolution and the self-denying ordinance, I'll have to read up on that. However, that very event could be used in order to establish nuances within this measure that would prevent that from happening. For example, perhaps in the Senate the vice-president could act as moderator; perhaps that role could extend to the House as well for the duration, and the authority withdrawn after a period of time. I'm very glad you brought this to my attention, but I feel the same as before. + +As for visionaries, also interesting, but: Our definitions of visionary may be different. It's fair to say that a constructive visionary is going to have strong ideas, yes, like anyone in pursuit of excellence and success, but it doesn't mean they won't be moderate, or reasonable, or open to adjustment of their views. In other words, having a concept for progress does not preclude political temperance, in my view. I don't agree that your idea of a visionary would necessarily be the kind that would fill the hypothetical vacuum. Also, since the conventions of election would stand otherwise un-altered, in my view it's a moot point, as voters will still choose the candidate they want. However I would argue that they will be even more interested than normal, thus more attentive and selective in their choices. The measure may indeed have the consequence of providing for the most effective Congress in a very long time." +"BenIncognito: > I want to argue that this common response prevents needed discussions of masculinity by drawing the focus back to femininity and women. + +The discussion is *about* feminity and women (specifically men acting like women). Let's look at your first sentence again: + +> It is a common observation that women can act and dress like men (more or less) without reproach, but that men cannot act and dress like **women** without criticism. + +See? You've correctly-identified ""the problem"" as men acting like women. So our views towards women and how they act is the reasoning behind this criticsm. The discussion is centered around femininity, because ""feminine"" is how the men in question are acting. +honest_john5: > The discussion is about feminity and women (specifically men acting like women). + +One can easily say that. But I'm arguing that the actor is as important as the part. I could easily bold my own word and say the problem is **men** acting like women, not men acting like **women**. Do you see? You're *making* the latter the problem by your emphasis. + +> The discussion is centered around femininity, because ""feminine"" is how the men in question are acting. + +Similarly here as well. You're acting as though the discussion *must* be this way. That's not true -- particularly because a man who does not act feminine but who does not know, say, how to fix a car or who dislikes football may still be viewed as a ""lesser"" man. " +"anonymous123421: The negative effects on the economy in poor countries that you mention are misleading; losing most tourist revenue is better than not having any in the first place. + +In some places, tourism is bad, but in many others (Vegas, many island nations, etc.) *tourism is the economy.* They rely on it, and they are locals. + +The Costa Rican government has implemented regulations that require foreign companies to pay some sort of tax or otherwise involve local Costa Ricans in their programs. There are alternatives to this issue. + +>You will not be able to get a good view of a country when you're only visiting amusement parks, beaches, and landmarks that only tourists go to see + +Not all tourists do this... and the vast majority of tourists don't do this for their entire visit. + +>most tourists don't even speak the language of the country their visiting and have a tourist guide/translator + +Is this an issue? + +>We've all seen tourists standing in the middle of the side walk in a large group, taking pictures of the most mundane things; while the rest of us want to get to school/work. + +Yes we have. I live in DC. The Washington Monument (I've never been inside) isn't a big deal to me. But I can understand why people would want a photo of it. I would want a photo of the Burj Khalifa, but I don't think anyone from Dubai would anymore. Just because your life is so back-and-forth and mundane doesn't mean that others shouldn't stop to appreciate their surroundings. Think about how pessimistic your statement is! You're saying that people shouldn't enjoy and appreciate things in favor of transporting themselves to their next meeting. That's dystopian. + +>Not everyone in Hawaii is always surfing, not everyone in the Netherlands is stoned all the time, not everyone in Berlin is always partying. + +Not sure how this is related... most tourists in these cities don't do this the entire time, and many people who live there do engage in these activities on occasion. The whole point of a vacation is to relax, so obviously the locals won't be on vacation. + +>You can't say you've visited a country until you've lived and worked there for over a year. + +That's just not true at all. + +>tourism is the worst kind of gentrification + +Tourism might *lead* to gentrification (although you have not shown evidence of this), but it itself is not at all gentrification. + +>tourists are ignorant of the locals, both their lifestyles and their culture. + +Some are, but many are not. Everyone is a tourist in 99% of the world anyway, so it's just the way it is. +ThrowCarp: >tourism is the economy. + +In the OP. Through inflation, it stops the development of other industries. Because it increases the capital required. + +>Tourism might lead to gentrification (although you have not shown evidence of this), but it itself is not at all gentrification. + +I put some in the OP as links. + +>The Washington Monument (I've never been inside) isn't a big deal to me. But I can understand why people would want a photo of it. I would want a photo of the Burj Khalifa, but I don't think anyone from Dubai would anymore. Just because your life is so back-and-forth and mundane doesn't mean that others shouldn't stop to appreciate their surroundings. Think about how pessimistic your statement is! You're saying that people shouldn't enjoy and appreciate things in favor of transporting themselves to their next meeting. That's dystopian. + +What I'm saying is that you haven't visited a country until *you've lived in it long enough for it to become mundane.* And obviously to have made a group of friends. + +Like I said, a country is a living, breathing community. Tourism is a form of escapism where; unlike other forms of entertainment, the destination is in the real world. And has impact on real people. + +>Everyone is a tourist in 99% of the world anyway + +I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. + +>Is this an issue? + +Yes, as part of the gentrification issue. + +" +"LevyWife: > What I am suggesting is a gradual removal of adult teeth over several years until they are completely removed (think from 12-30). + +I'm not sure if you quite understand how dentures work or how expensive they are. If people had extra money to buy new dentures every time they got some teeth pulled (and to pay for their teeth getting pulled out), they likely wouldn't be neglecting their oral hygiene so horribly in the first place. + +championofobscurity: > I'm not sure if you quite understand how dentures work or how expensive they are + +Health care is becoming more affordable. This assumes cost is less of an issue or not an issue. + +> they likely wouldn't be neglecting their oral hygiene so horribly in the first place + +This is not an effective deterrent for the average person. If you are set in your ways no amount of inconvenience or pain will change your personal habits. That's why people get cavities and let them turn into strokes." +"jumpup: if one has not committed a murder before then knowingly pushing someone to their death is to big of a burden on most people regardless of whats at stake. + +you see efficiency wise you might safe more people, but in doing so you harm yourself. Self harm should always be avoided + +also, the person you kill does not care what reason you kill him for, he dies, it doesn't matter if its because you wanted to on a whim or because all life on the planet is at risk. he would not want to be murdered (unless the scenario states that he does) + + +lets put it another way, your on a platform a guy tries to push you onto the tracks, you knife the sucker and kill him, a short while later 5 other people die, later research shows that your death could have prevented their deaths, should you feel guilty? +Dont_Quote_Me_On_It: > your on a platform a guy tries to push you onto the tracks, you knife the sucker and kill him, a short while later 5 other people die, later research shows that your death could have prevented their deaths, should you feel guilty? + +Later research would not have been able to influence my decision, since I did not know that my death would have saved 5 people. Even so, the question would not be whether I was justified in knifing the person who tried to push me, the question would be whether he was justified in trying to push me. + +> he would not want to be murdered (unless the scenario states that he does) + +Right, but neither would the 5 people. My view in general is that an action that can prevent an injustice while doing a lesser injustice should be undertaken because failing to do so prioritizes morals over life, which is unjustifiable to any other person." +"Raintee97: you can't use the leaked pictures to hack into my bank account, or find out where I live, or find out where I go to school. + + +So if I found a few pictures of you and leaked them. And then stated that I would leak more pictures unless you did X,Y and Z, I'm sure I could extort you out of that information. +cmvnude: Also, what the hacker did was wrong and I completely agree that extortion is wrong." +"jumpup: alright so you a portion of the protesters did know what they wanted but economic reforms are boring tv idiots with signs are not + +what you don't realize is the immense gap, no job exists that can pay what the 1% has, hell you can win the lottery and still only have a small portion of the 1 % + +you see money is power and with power comes responsibility, now the problem isn't that they have it its the way they use it, +devin27: Exactly, no job exists that can pay what the 1% has, except if you create your own company (or become a VP/CEO of a large multinational). Creating your own company is an option that is available to everyone, all you have to do is have an idea and tolerance for risk. Creating your own company provides a chance of becoming part of the 1%, but there's also a chance that it won't succeed." +"JohnSmith1800: I'm not going to argue that there is no situation in which a ""Nazi comparison"" is not a valid argument. Absolutes aren't particularly useful. However, I think I can argue why there is almost always a **better** argument to be made, mainly because the ""Nazi comparison"" is a lazy shorthand and hence should rarely be used. + +First of all, let's look at the two examples you provided of when it is a bad argument. In both cases what the comparison is made in lieu of a real argument. Instead of saying ***why*** X is bad or A is wrong, the person is taking shortcuts. They are saying, ""we all know the Nazis are bad, and they did X, so hence X is bad"". As you said, this is a bad argument, especially if X = driving tanks or something else irrelevant to why we dislike Nazis. + +However, the argument is still equally lazy if it is used somewhere else. If I say ""genocide is bad because the Nazis did it"", the shorthand seems relevant. However, I'm still not showing ***why*** genocide is bad. I'm skipping the step. + +Why is this a bad thing? Surely everyone knows the Nazis are bad because of genocide. Well, if I'm trying to convince someone that genocide is bad, then failing to show why genocide is bad isn't going to work. I can't say ""Don't eat cyanide, it's a poison."" to someone who doesn't know that poison is bad. + +It might be useful in my explanation of ***why*** genocide is bad, to discuss the Nazis. It may be useful in a discussion of eugenics, or the death penalty. But on it's own, without context, it isn't an argument. + +There are of course issues of people using it as a way of ending an argument by claiming unassailable moral ground, which is what u/tvrr did. By making the Nazi comparison, he attempts to frame any arguments *against* his position as being in *support* of the Nazis. This is both lazy debate, and unconvincing. + +If he had put in why it was like Nazi Germany even it may be a defensible or valid point. By failing to do so, he stifles debate on a subreddit devoted to it. The downvotes are well deserved in my opinion (well, at least as many to remove his comment from view, beyond that is unnecessary.) +falafelsaur: I disagree with your characterization of the use of Nazis as a shortcut. I'd say instead that they are used as a counterexample (when used correctly). In a genocide discussion the use of Nazis is silly simply because there is no apparently correct principle to provide a counterexample to. + +In the example I showed, Westlondonwannabe made a general statement that it is okay to X under Y conditions, however tvrr provided an example where Y conditions seem to be met, and yet we all agree that it was not okay to do X. This clearly means that either the something in the statement needs to be clarified, or extra conditions need to be added. tvrr may not know exactly what the correct clarification or additional conditions are, however she/he still knows that the original statement was not exactly correct due to the counterexample. + +As something of a side note: I understand that tvrr didn't stated this in a way that seems open to debate, and it may be that he is not and indeed does want to ""frame any arguments against his position as being in support of the Nazis"", and yes that would be bad faith discussion. However, why do we need to respond to his (apparent) intentions, rather than the content of his statement?" +"MonkeyButlers: I've got a tortoise. When I first got her from the store she had a respiratory infection. It's a common condition for tortoises of her type and the guy at the store even warned me about the possibility. The symptoms are pretty clear and the tortoise forums I went on all confirmed what I thought. I went to the vet, she double confirmed and prescribed an antibiotic. I gave it to my tortoise as directed and her symptoms went away. It's pretty much the exact same thing I would have done if I had some symptoms and needed a doctor. I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, but I don't know what sort of thing you would need to be convinced. +vehementi: Well, I am probably ignorant about what regulations, practices and social/economic pressures exist in vets. For example, someone could show that shady vets immediately go out of business due to there being a huge population of super-well-informed pet owners that immediately smell BS, and thus it would be unlikely for me to run into a shady vet." +"11l1l1l1l1l1l11: >why should extra time be allotted? + + Since you're still in high school and haven't been to college yet I'll tell you something you might not know which is that Colleges usually have more learning disability accommodations than high schools. + +Why should the time be allotted? Because it's the only way in this system to fairly gauge how well a LD student knows high school curriculum compared to a non-LD student. I think if you spent more time with students who are actually LD and did some real research on it you'll end up thinking that giving them more time on a standardized test is the least that could be done to help them get into a decent school. +jtmarmon: >Since you're still in high school and haven't been to college yet I'll tell you something you might not know which is that Colleges usually have more learning disability accommodations than high schools. + +I'm going to pretend like that wasn't facetious + + +Most of my experience is with the ACT. The ACT has very little to do with curriculum. It is almost entirely reasoning skills and speed. Giving a LD student extra time debases the whole reason of giving a test - to measure how fast and accurately a student can take it. Sure the LD students will struggle, but the point remains that allotting extra time artificially inflates LD students' scores." +"Omnipotence456: Most of us don't actually want to make some anonymous ""people"" happier. Peace on earth and ending world hunger and such are nice notions, but people don't actually care about things THAT much bigger than them (in general - yeah, there are some people who actually dedicate their lives to ending world hunger). + +Instead, most people want to make their FRIENDS happier, and thereby gain social capital. That's what gift-giving and inviting everyone over for dinner and drinks is about. It's an opportunity to spend time with people you already know, and exchange gifts so that you can show off how generous you are, or how well you know what that person wants. This is a useful notion because it turns out having friends is good for people. + +Why don't we do it all the time? Because ain't nobody got time (or money) for that. Same reason life isn't just a constant party. We have to do productive things part of the time to have the resources for the partying. +G01denW01f11: > exchange gifts so that you can show off how generous you are + +How can doing a thing that is expected count as generosity? + +> This is a useful notion because it turns out having friends is good for people. + +Why do you say this? + +>Why don't we do it all the time? Because ain't nobody got time (or money) for that. Same reason life isn't just a constant party. We have to do productive things part of the time to have the resources for the partying. + +Carolling costs nothing. Displaying already-owned ornamentation costs nothing. Spending a day off with your family costs little." +"Slave_to_Logic: The problem with your argument is that you see non-computer driven cars as infinitely less reliable than automated cars. + +I can assure you that when a tire blows, I will wrestle my car off of the road with greater ease than an automatic car. I can assure you that no single sensor failure will cause me to create an accident, something that can't necessarily be said for automatic cars. + +Perhaps I should add that I am one of the biggest proponents of self-driving cars. I'm looking forward to the day when all 50 states allow them on the roads, not just the handful that have already allowed them. I also think that full-auto control is a good thing, not just the control where you still sit behind a wheel ready to take over if need be. + +But to suggest that we all have to retire our beloved cars just because some anti-liberty types like your think that overall it would be better for someone... Well I can honestly say that I'd take up arms to oppose your plans. Having the ability to ride in an automatic car will be wonderful. Forcing people to drive only in automatic cars will cause a lot of fascist blood to be spilled. +matthewrozon: I did specifically say that when they are foolproof. Right now there isn't nearly enough trial etc to implement my idea. + +I agree with your blown tire comment, and that was the only scenario where I thought it would be better to have control. I don't have experience with them but couldn't we put run-flats on them? + + The problem is that so many of the benefits only come when every car on the road is self-driven. The reduced traffic, the 0 accident risk, the reduced emissions + +" +"the_snooze: Direct democracy facilitated by or done over the Internet would weaken national security. By performing legally-binding elections over the Internet, we open legal system up to hackers of all sorts: from script kiddies to corporations to other countries' intelligence services. The technology to execute elections online just isn't there yet, and it won't come anytime soon. The requirements (both legal and technical) are incredibly strict and often contradictory; for instance, how do we perform voter authentication online while ensuring a secret ballot, all the while allowing for post-election audits and defending against voter coercion and vote-buying? +DeliciousMrCheese: Let's assume a system like Bitcoin, cryptographically secured." +"BenIncognito: What about the multitude of people who waste time dating attractive people? What about the multitude of unattractive people who end up falling in love? + +Just because you might be playing the game with a handicap doesn't mean you shouldn't play. Not everyone gets to win, but you're sure as heck not going to win if you don't play. +frustratedtheologist: While I agree that unnattractive people do end up falling in love, I feel it's much less what they really feel so much as what they ended up settling on. + +They are often passed for more attractive fare, and forced to choose on other traits. + +Now as for playing the game with a handicap. Take this into perspective. + +You are playing football. You are the forward for your team. You have a sprain or injury that limits your run speed and maneuverability. Your fellow forwards all have fully functioning legs and regularly score goals. + +You are not fit for the task, so why continue playing that position?" +"FacelessBureaucrat: It sounds like you're talking about a specific place. I live in a dense neighborhood of Boston - some residents have their own off-street parking, but I would guess that most don't. If our streets weren't designated residential parking only, I wouldn't be able to have a car here. +pgold167: I guess I'm specifically talking about where it's feasible to not have residents park on the street. This is a town of 50K. I will edit my OP to clarify." +"huadpe: On crowded flights, the overhead bins frequently fill up. If you're near the last on the plane, you may be forced to gate check your bag, meaning you have to wait around at the baggage carousel when you get to your destination, plus no access to your bag during the flight. +Simius: I will say I haven't had this problem since I'm always able to fit things under the seat in front of me. But I understand with some small luggage, overhead bin would be very convenient afterwards." +"agentxorange127: If gay marriage is not allowed in a state - + +1) Their marriages technically *are* null and void, as the state does not recognize them. +2) Marriage is not actually decided by the people in the union, since there are legal requirements as well as legal benefits. Which brings me to my next point. +3) There are several legal benefits (as well as tax benefits) to being married. States which do not allow gay marriage do not give these legal benefits to gay couples. + +You might believe you are married to someone, but the term ""marriage"" is a political one indeed since it has legal ramifications. +LasalBoyagama: 1. The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle, it is fundamentally a relationship between two people. If you look back in history the state rarely ever recognised marriages due to the lack of infrastructure to record all of them. However people did not feel that their marriages were void because the government didn't have records of it. + +2. You are correct if you are talking only about the lack of equality concerning the civil liberties of gay couples when compared to heterosexual couples. + +3. That is exactly what I am saying is the problem, that Gay couples are not given the same rights as other couples." +"RobertK1: The FBI definition of Rape has always lagged behind any current understanding (up until about 15 years ago it was impossible for a male to be raped by their definition - literally impossible). + +I guess as a question, since one constitutes rape, and one constitutes sexual assault, what's the major downside to this from a legal perspective? I'd tend to target the social aspect (where society as a whole ignores any suggestion that women are stronger than men or capable of being the aggressor) as more important than the legal one. + +So where would we start on fixing this? +arborpress: The UK is interesting in that there are separate definitions for rape (specifies ""his penis"") and assault by penetration (anus or vagina). As an American, I'm curious if anyone else has different perspectives of how terminology changes the response to sex without consent from legal/social perspective. + +Edit to add: I'd be especially interested to see people address the ""weight"" of the word, better worded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1n4xai/the_definition_of_rape_should_include_men_made_to/ccg0s39). How do victims of rape by penetration feel when their experience is not technically 'rape'? " +"controversialideas: Your argument works if the pluralism at its heart is the idea that we shouldn't impose views on others. + +However, if pluralism is instead the view that we should guarantee maximum freedom of views for all, then sometimes you have to make rules limiting freedom to maximize freedom. Like your right to freedom ends at when it infringes the freedom of somebody else. +pixlepix: I did define pluralism at the top of my post." +"asianedy: Domestically I agree with you, since they would know they are probably being watched. However if you were a terrorist in, let's say a small town in Brazil, would you feel like the US could monitor you're communications? Most likely not. Intelligence gathering relies heavily on being unseen. The fact that Snowden leaked that a lot of countries communications are intercepted now makes intelligence gathering harder. +alocc247: Hmm. If you were a terrorist in a small town in Afghanistan you would certainly expect to be spied on. If you were in a small town in Brazil I don't think the expectation would be that the US *couldn't* spy on you; it would be that they *wouldn't* spy on you for, say, diplomatic reasons. Even then I feel the terrorist would expect to be monitored if he were on a watch list. + +I think you might be onto something here. I remember the stories about spying on Petrobras, but that doesn't seem like what you're talking about. What other spying programs in Brazil were revealed? +" +"MrCapitalismWildRide: But all those accomplishments were made when they were the master. Old as he was, Vader was still the apprentice. Whatever accomplishments he made would have likely occurred after he took on Luke as his apprentice, at which point he'd get down to business. He didn't have time to sit around and do experiments, because he had work to do, just like Darth Maul didn't do much but swing a light saber around. + +Note that this is based purely on the movies and a few expanded universe companion books. +antoninj: Darth Maul was never a formal Sith apprentice. He was a Sith fighter, so to speak, one that was never meant to surpass Sidious. So he's not an accurate comparison. + +And again, this just proves that Vader wasn't that great of a Sith. When he destroyed his master, he destroyed himself. And he didn't destroy his master out of lust for power. " +"rigamortus76: You are probably acutely aware of various differences between males and females. Do you think being aware of them makes you a sexist? + +It's not racist to identify legitimate differences between members of various races, it's racist to assume all members of that race are a certain way or should be treated a certain way because of some generalization you've made about the group, or that people can be ranked from ""best"" to ""worst"" based on race, however defined. We can recognize diversity without being racist. No need to avoid learning about reality. + +Edited for clarity, spelling. +ethicsandracism: I don't think it does, but if there was some way to not be aware of them - it might help my perspective. + +I do also have some motivation to inform myself specifically about women because as a straight male it is in my interest to educate myself about certain differences, but even here I stay away from certain research for the same reasons. " +"edvol44: Being able to speak multiple languages can help you think in different ways in addition to speaking a language differently. I dont know how useful the 12 language people will be, but learning multiple languages will still be useful just for the cognitively inspirational aspect. Apart from that, in 20 years we may have excellent babelfish-like translation tools that are cheap and effective, or we may not. If not, then maybe in 30 years or something. +nunchukity: I absolutely agree with learning more than one language, I speak english and am competent at two others myself but learning more than say 5/6 is, imo, just an attempt at showing off" +"akhoe: You mention improving and growing as a person; that's just the thing, the longer you spend apart from a friend or a family member, the more you both change. When you finally reconnect, it's like meeting someone completely new. Then you feel a sense of distance which only builds, because the last time you met you had the same feeling, until you're practically strangers. + +I had this happen to me recently with a very good friend who I hadn't seen in over a year due to self imposed isolation following a bout with depression and substance abuse. + +To love is to sacrifice. You do sacrifice your time to spend it with the love of your life, because I think you already know that it is crucial to maintaining a healthy relationship. You aren't willing to sacrifice any time to maintain your other relationships and that shows in your actions. You're proving to your loved ones where your priorities lie; you'd rather spend your time watching tv and reading instead of talking to them on the phone or on skype. That's you nonverbally communicating exactly how much you truly value that relationship. + +We only have so much time for so many relationships. Why would anyone want to put in their effort and sacrifice their limited time for someone who doesn't sacrifice for them? +noussea: Thanks for your reply. + +I do not agree with the part where we become strangers. Of course depending on how our lives will change us we can drift apart gradually or we might even get closer. That's subject to what life will bring. + +Being in touch will depend on priorities of course. I see my brothers every other week, I talk to my parents every couple of days. I hang out with my friends on monthly basis nowadays. + +But I haven't seen most of my relatives in over a year. I usually don't call them either. That's not just because I don't have time; I also do not have much to share with them. But I believe that doesn't mean I don't like them. We happen to be different people that doesn't have much in common. When I think about these kind of relationships; I believe it's not the time spent together or talking over the phone that strengthens the relationship, it's the root of the relationship that holds it together. + +I have friends like these too. I have a friend who is a doctor. I like him a lot, he's one of the nicest people you can know. But we do not enjoy each other's company that much. We talk over the phone from time to time, desiring to know about each other's well being and when we're in the same city we have dinner together to catch up. While with my doctor friend it's working perfectly, it doesn't work with others when they demand more. + +I can also understand that for some loving somebody can mean to connect as much as you can cause that feels better. But for me I do feel that my grandmother loves me (not just I think, I really do feel it in me) although I haven't seen her for over a year. However I'm having hard time to understand why other people doesn't feel that way. + +> Why would anyone want to put in their effort and sacrifice their limited time for someone who doesn't sacrifice for them? + +I don't want them to put in any effort, I just would like them to know that even though I don't have the time to spend with them or call them I really do love them. + +" +"Piratiko: I'll agree that the government has proven itself untrustworthy multiple times, but it also can be counted on for certain things. As far as I know, people get their welfare checks on time. The police respond when people call them. The fire department doesn't refuse or neglect to put out fires. + +I do think that the government shouldn't be given carte blanche, and they probably have too much power, so shouldn't have more, but I don't think it's entirely untrustworthy, as you claim. +mahaanus: I'm not saying that we aren't forced to comply on certain matters, but that we should never trust it and should prevent the Government from gaining more power. " +"BaylisAscaris: * Assumes Marriage = more likely to have babies +* Do both partners have to be intelligent, or just one to get tax benefits? +* Will this eventually destroy the middle class? +* What about smart gay or infertile people? +* Assumes intelligence is genetic. +* How do we measure intelligence? Do we just want people with a higher IQ on paper, or people who will benefit society with their ideas, inventions, and motivation? Is that inheritable and how do we test for it? + +I believe that to improve as a society (as an alternative) we should do what New Zeland is doing and incentivize people with certain qualities to move into the US. + + +DeiGratia: 1) I'll quote a post someone else made up top. + +""While I don't support OP's proposal, it does seem likely that incentivising earlier marriages would result in earlier marriages and therefore earlier/more births."" + +2) No idea. Either way would lead to an increase in general population intelligence, by encouraging smart people to get married and raise families. + +3) How so? + +4) Out of a principle of fairness, I believe that they should be included as well, if they choose to marry. + +5) A large part of it is. Motivation does play a big role, but genetics cannot simply be overlooked. + +6) Like I said in an earlier post, I'm hoping that a program like this will increase emphasis placed on defining intelligence, and that more effort will be given to measuring it. As such, the ways in which we do so are bound to change over time. + + +""I believe that to improve as a society (as an alternative) we should do what New Zeland is doing and incentivize people with certain qualities to move into the US."" + + +Most countries, I believe, already have immigrant programs designed to bring ""desirable"" immigrants to their shores. " +"jumpup: you can either decrease the number of people so the plus ones still keep the total under 30 + +you could specifically invite only them, but you might have cancellations + +the idea is that you get to know their partners as they are of equal importance as your friends in your friends eyes. denying them signifies that you feel their judgment is impaired as they select unfit partners. + +gatherings are intended to make new friends or get others to like you. however if you are the one hosting it etiquette says your rules go, though if they decide not to come its their right to claim this as the reason rather then make up exuses about work or other things +kelloquence: Thanks for your response :) + +I can't really decrease the numbers. I've got family I want there, as well as the bare minimum of friends that I have there too. It's a small venue. + +If I mentioned this, and added on the fact that I'm not inviting any other plus ones either, does it always mean that I think their partners are unfit to be with them? Because I don't. I may not know/like them, but I can see my friend is happy. + +And this might be a bit blunt, but if you're in a relationship, I get that your partner is just as/more important than your friends. But as a friend whose friends have partners, my friends' partners aren't as important to me as my friends. Is it alright to just want a few hours to spend with your friends without them being preoccupied with their partner?" +"[deleted]: First off, a lot of drag performances have serious problems with race, so I won't even try to argue that. + +But I don't think it's quite comparable to blackface. The point of blackface is to dress up as a black person. The point of drag is to dress in clothes reserved for another gender, not to portray a ""character"" that is actually transgender. Furthermore I never got the impression that drag was meant to ""lampoon the idea of crossdressing"" since crossdressing is, you know, what drag is. + +Certainly I think the drag community could afford to be more informed and sensitive about transgender issues (I know a lot of drag queens that use terms like ""tranny"" in ways they really shouldn't). But I can certainly imagine ways in which drag shows could go on without stepping on any toes, even if very few of them manage to do that at this point. +OvertFemaleUsername: Inevitably though, they do end up portraying a character. Even though it may not be a transgender person, the comparison is often drawn afterwards and is still damaging to those who are actually gender variant. If the drag community could take those steps, I could see it becoming more acceptable. But in its present form, I still think that the LGBT community shouldn't support it." +"caw81: > This front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. + +But would removing these be representative of the Internet? So how can it be the ""front-page""? + +> I think free speech can flourish without hate speech. + +But some speech people consider hate, while others don't. So I don't like Jews because of reason X. Is that hate speech or just free speech? + +> Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions + +What is an ill intention and what does it have to do with removing free speech? Why not just say ""ill intention subreddits will be banned""? What if someone says the gross, negative and morbid is ill intentions to him? Who is to judge on this? + +Waspinthehivemind: ""But would removing these be representative of the Internet? So how can it be the ""front-page""?"" + +Yes since the internet can consist of numerous pages. voat and 4chan are different if not back pages. + +""But some speech people consider hate, while others don't. So I don't like Jews because of reason X. Is that hate speech or just free speech?"" + +Well, I think dislike and hate are distinct. Hate is an increased intensity which is the thing that effects others in a negative manner. So if it was 'I really hate filthy Jews' then it's clearly hate. Subreddits are the collective of that hate which I think is great if not housed on reddit. Vent elsewhere. + +""What is an ill intention and what does it have to do with removing free speech? Why not just say ""ill intention subreddits will be banned""? What if someone says the gross, negative and morbid is ill intentions to him? Who is to judge on this?"" + +The aim is to effects others in a negative manner. fatpeoplehate is a clear example of the intention to direct hate and hostility toward people. Could you give an example of the gross/negative/morbid being misinterpreted as the intent to hurt someone? + +" +"jmsolerm: > The concept of turning a profit or increasing revenue is often considered morally wrong or downright evil. + +I half-agree, this ""it's just for profit"" mentality is similar to the ""it's just for the oxyitocin and dopamine, so there's no truly altruist people"". But I expect companies to follow profit, and people to follow their wills, not the will of the market (yes, making choices in the market, but working as more than a cog). + +> whenever a company attempts to protect the product that they spent time and resources on from being stolen + +""Stolen"" is a wrong word, since it implies deprivation. + +> it's viewed as proof of their greed. + +The means by which companies stop unauthorized sharing are often extremely intrusive and harmful to legitimate users. + +> Except in a few extreme circumstances, efforts by companies to curtail piracy are totally reasonable. + +Do you have any study proving piracy negatively impacts sales? +Zoidinho: But I think ""stolen"" is the right word because the software cost a great deal of time and effort to produce. They then sell the product in the hopes that they will take in more money than it cost to produce. I think the idea that ""the company should produce the product, but the customer gets to decide if it should be free or not"" is unfair to the company. They take a significant risk by focusing their resources on a given product, and they therefore have a right to set its price. + +As for the last point, would an entire industry spend all of this money on anti-piracy measures, measures which they know offend and turn off a number of customers, if they didn't see some value in it? Either it does significantly negatively impact sales, or it offends them that people are taking the stuff they worked so hard on without paying them for their effort. In either case, it's their choice what to do with their product, and branding them evil for wanting to be paid for their risk and effort is unreasonable. This applies to the second to last point, too. If their efforts to stop piracy are so intrusive, the legitimate consumers can decide to look for better products elsewhere. " +"cdb03b: A fist bump establishes camaraderie if and only if you are from a subset of society that uses it in that manner. For the rest of us it is a sign of possible aggression and intimidation. + +A handshake is more easily followed by a hug as you can pull the other into the hug. +wobinidan: As I said in my OP, the negative associations with fistbumps will disappear over time. And I really doubt that it could be seen as a sign of aggression in the long run, since the fist is not aimed at the body, but held out, just as one holds out one's hand for a handshake." +"emmatini: Throughout, she is talking about 'people' giving consent, not women. So the person who is vomiting, all floppy, fall-down drunk cannot consent - that could be either party. + +If *both* people are in that state, then well, sex isn't going to happen. Not peeing your pants might even be asking too much! Sex is only going to happen if at least one person involved is sober enough to a) want sex b)try to make it happen, and if the other person is in that bad a state, you really should be - as the video says - ""taking care of them, not taking advantage of them"". Because the only attraction of having sex with someone who is that drunk is pretty much that they can't stop you. + + +Mavericgamer: The problem with that theory is that I have known people in a state of falling-down drunk who have groped at my crotch. I was sober at the time and stopped it, but I know from experience that I'm way more open to that sort of thing when I am drunk, even can't-stand, barely-remember-the-next-day drunk. So there are certainly people who can (and will) have sex while totally drunk. It might not be particularly non-messy sex, but it can still happen." +"[deleted]: Yes and no. + +Women's only hours at gyms are there to provide women with a safe and comfortable time to work out without the fear of being scrutinized, ogled, or becoming the object of over sexualization. Imagine being a woman in your workout clothes on a treadmill just doing your thing, would you really want a ton of guys staring at you as you work out? Or, hear cat calls and whistles as you work out? +[deleted]: I go to the gym at my university fairly often (4 times a week) and I have literally never seen any cat calls or whistles. Most people are actually decent, believe it or not. Being scrutinized, ogled, or over sexualization is a problem with society, not specifically with gyms; we don't see female only or male only facilities or times set aside in most other instances (besides bathrooms, I suppose). " +"KrustyFrank27: So if I called you a bitch right now, is it okay because I didn't call you a female dog? If I called you a dick, would it be okay? I'm not rally calling you a penis, after all. + +Just because a word is ""divorced from its original meaning"" doesn't mean that the use of the word is okay. Imagine if the word ""hetero"" were to became synonymous with ""stupid"" or ""terrible"" tomorrow. How would you feel? Would you feel like people are calling you terrible simply because of your sexuality? Because that's how gay people take it when people use ""gay"" as an insult. +CurcleofLife: Thank you for responding! I do have some objections to this comment, however. + +""So if I called you a bitch right now, is it okay because I didn't call you a female dog? If I called you a dick, would it be okay? I'm not really calling you a penis, after all."" + +Well, if you called me a bitch, I would interpret that as a criticism of me in particular, and not a criticism of female dogs, because you are using that word in a certain context. If you were to use that word in the context of a discussion about gender in dogs, I would interpret it differently. +Similarly, if you called me a dick, I would interpret that as a criticism of me in particular and not a criticism of all males. If you were to use the word dick when discussing urology, I would interpret that word to mean an actual penis. + +""Just because a word is ""divorced from its original meaning"" doesn't mean that the use of the word is okay."" + +A major criticism of using the word Gay as an insult is that it demeans all Gay people. Recognizing that the semantic shell can carry different meanings refutes this particular objection, because calling one meaning bad does not necessarily tarnish every other meaning in the same semantic shell. + +""Imagine if the word hetero were to become synonymous with stupid or terrible tomorrow. How would you feel?"" +I would not be offended. Because in this hypothetical, using the word hetero as an insult would not necessarily be an attack on straight people, it would just add another meaning to a semantic shell. + +""Would you feel like people are calling you terrible simply because of your sexuality?"" +No. And even if I did feel that way, that wouldn't make me correct. + +""Because that's how gay people take it when people use ""gay"" as an insult."" +And I can fully sympathize. However, I don't think that is a logical way to take it. +" +"Racecarlock: The one at the top already does get executed. It's called death row, look it up. + +As for street thugs, there is no definitive proof that they can't be reformed. Furthermore, false accusations and arrests happen frequently, and I don't want innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. +Dango-senpai: I'm aware of capital punishment. + +I'm not trying to say that street thugs are all bad and should burn; or that I know who is bad or who isn't bad. +What I'm trying to say is that, if there was a way to find out if a person is incapacitated in the ways I mentioned in the original post, I believe said person should be executed. + +" +"pgold167: You shouldn't feel bad because other people don't do what you think is right. You're not responsible for the behavior of others. I mean, good for you for being a good person, but you are being too hard on yourself. I'm white. Are you saying I shouldn't be responsible for this solely because of skin color? That's not fair. Give a good tip, and demonstrate polite behavior to others. That should be enough. +SettleDownAlready: This is what I keep trying to get through my head. I see what you are saying and I believe it but when I see people like myself just being horrible to servers over and over again I just feel like I have to prove that I know better and that I'm not like them." +"Gogohax: Spanking kids only teaches them that if they do something authority doesn't like they'll get spanked. It doesn't teach reason or value as to *why* what they did was wrong. And once the kid learns to toughen up and accept getting spanked then what? Are you just gonna keep spanking them harder? The only way to guarantee a kid won't do something again is if they become aware of the feelings of others and *why* what they did was bad. +halpalalpa: Well this is assuming that the spanking doesn't come in conjunction with a thorough explanation of the reasons behind it. + +Also, while I can only base this on my personal experience, the point of smacking is not to put a child through so much pain that they cannot handle it any more and do as you say. It is more the concept that, to me at least, was the reason behind its effectiveness. + +In addition I would say that as a child I would often do something which was obviously not the right thing to do (not necessarily because it hurt the feelings of people, but because it was dangerous/broke stuff etc.) and just having it explained to me why it was wrong would have very little effect on a 7 year old kid, who hasn't yet learnt the inherent importance of not just doing what they want. " +"fanningmace: > There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent. The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. + + +None of this has anything to do with the type of government. These things can happen in any form of government. Is there a reason you think if these things occur it means the government is not a democracy? + +The definition of democracy: ""government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."" + +What part of that definition do you feel does not apply to the US? We have elected agents that are selected by the people. While I agree with u/hacksoncode generally, that is more an argument of semantics at this point (since the last part of the definition provided above is essentially a Democratic Republic.) + +> Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? + +Not directly, no. But the US is not a direct democracy (and no one ever claimed it was.) We elect representatives- which are voted on democratically- and they represent the people. + + +Smelly_Bob: I agree with a lot of this, sure. But it would be naive to say that even the representatives had a lot of say in most of these matters. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'll just say ""Secret Courts""" +"incruente: Celsius is based on water, true, but so is much of our world. Foods, people, animals, many things are mostly or largely water. Which means it's rather more intuitively applicable than fahrenheit. Fahrenheit may be more precise, but for everyday use, that level of precision is hardly important; does it really matter if it's 58 degrees or 61 degrees out? If that level of precision is important, we can use tenths of a degree. As for the 0/50/100 joke, all that really uses is three essentially arbitrary numbers to mock to systems. But who just uses those three numbers? You could make a similar joke about people being morbidly obese or terminally anorexic based on the units of mass you wanted to use, but it would mean nothing. +Fluttertree321: Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the level of precision because it detracts from my main point. From an everyday standpoint, I don't have to care about this water stuff. Celsius is probably better for scientific application, but I care about the temperature from my human perspective. 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot. 0/50/100 isn't arbitrary either, especially considering that Celsius is even based on the base-10 system. 0 being freezing for water and 100 being boiling, 50 being the midway between 0 and 100." +"DHCKris: There's no such thing as ""both sets of genitals."" Genitals are the same, just shaped differently if you're male versus if you are female. + +Take it from me, being trans sucks. At least if I were intersexed, my parents (and society) wouldnt have carelessly assumed one way or the other: they would, hopefully have been considerate enough to acknowledge my ambiguous status and let me come into my own as one sex or the other. It would have been a million times more preferable to grow up with a ""choice"" than being forced into the wrong box. Yeah, ambiguity sucks too, but at least I'd only have nature to blame, and it's something I could probably learn to appreciate. +durutticolumn: > There's no such thing as ""both sets of genitals."" + +The article that inspired this specifically says ""both male & female genitalia."" Are you saying intersex isn't a thing? + +> ambiguity sucks too, but at least I'd only have nature to blame, and it's something I could probably learn to appreciate + +How is that any different from being trans?" +"abacuz4: So someone could theoretically win an election by having literally no one vote for them? + +Wouldn't a far better option be allowing votes for multiple candidates (i.e., approval and/or instant run-off voting)? It would accomplish the same thing without allowing the possibility of a victor that almost no one voted for. +Ez_Duzit: > So someone could theoretically win an election by having literally no one vote for them? + +Exactly! Then the next time around you might just get some decent candidates in the race as everyone would know that the person won simply because he's the one his party supported that time around. The party would surely be more inclined to find someone the people actually want." +"ItIsOnlyRain: CMV: if you're a white supremacist, then youtube.com is the best site on the Internet to recruit because of its huge userbase, lax moderation, upvote system, and popular opinion. + +I am not even going to disagree there are some racists on reddit and sometimes certain unpleasant views are upvoted by certain people but compared to places like youtube it is much tamer and open to discussions occurring. Often the more compelling arguement is the one upvoted more as opposed to youtube which tends towards more one sided arguments. + +IAmAN00bie: YouTube is also a good site for that (...check out some of their comments sections). But YT is a bit different because it's so much larger, like Facebook, that the other content oversaturates the space. There's no front-page that a racist could game because of everything else going on. + +On reddit, you could make an adviceanimal about black people and get it to /r/all, beating out everything else. + +>I am not even going to disagree there are some racists on reddit and sometimes certain unpleasant views are upvoted by certain people but compared to places like youtube it is much tamer and open to discussions occurring. + +I think the ""discussions"" that happen here are worse. People fill the ""discussion"" with thinly veiled propaganda (See: the long copy-pasta about black crime that are copy-pasted from Stormfront). + +YT comments are more out-right racist, so regular people will tend to just ignore it." +"stevegcook: Could you explain your current understanding of what it means when a trans person says they want to be ""treated like a man?"" As in, exactly what that would entail. I suspect this is part of the reason it doesn't make sense to you, but I'd like to hear your view on it first before potentially disagreeing with you about it. +AirBlaze: Being ""treated like a man"" could mean a lot of things. Some people might see it as getting better wages, or more respect in the workplace. Others might think it means they're expected to ""man up"" and power through problems. Men aren't expected to wear skirts. Stuff like that." +"[deleted]: If you feel that your only role in shaping society is voting, then sure catch up during election time. However the finer details will be lost. + +Reasons to keep up with news are + +1. It may directly affect you(or your worldly sensibilities) and you may see it coming + +2. If you focus on what you can change/impact(your dollars are votes) knowing what is going on will help you guide the world/society in the right way. + +It helped me to see the things I can't change as things I wouldn't worry so much about now. +juhesihcaaa: I don't understand what you mean by your last sentence? Could you rephrase? I'm probably just reading it wrong or something." +"Wrestlingisgood: A lawyer can be as good as he or she can be, but the fact is you are always getting a competent attorney and as good as an attorney may be, they can't change facts. + +If you are caught going 90 miles an hour with cocaine and a dead hooker in the trunk, no lawyer can get you out of that as long as the searh was good and the chain of evidence was followed. You will get the representation of an attorney who passed the bar. +phuque_ewe: While I would absolutely love to believe this, I don't think this is the case. I think that the effectiveness of a good lawyer varies significantly like every other profession. Some lawyers know tricks to help reduce sentences, some know how to pull heart strings of jurors, etc. + +In my opinion, a more seasoned lawyer with a good track record would have slightly better chances of giving someone a better outcome. + +If you put yourself in a hypothetical situation and say you have unlimited funds, would you choose a lawyer that charges $100 bucks an hour, or would you choose a lawyer that has a proven case history of favorable outcomes that charges $1000 bucks an hour?" +"anonymous123421: I think it's unfair to generalize. Sure, *some* parents may choose, but I think many (and probably most) love all of their children. + +If you are a parent, you understand the bond that a mother or father has with her/his child-- it's *usually* an indescribably powerful relationship that cannot be quantified or superseded. I truly think most parents don't, but either way it's unfair to make a blanket statement about all parents. +Hypothermial: Hmm... you are most likely right. I am not a mother (and unfortunately I won't ever get to be biologically), so I can't really say what it's really like. + +But I am a biased person at heart, and I still remain somewhat with the same view, but I can see that I am missing out on the emotions that follow. + +Thank you nevertheless for responding. :D" +"GeorgeMaheiress: Some might say that it's irresponsible to put that much money behind your political beliefs no matter what those beliefs are. Say the Koch brothers were religious fundamentalists, and they spent all that money supporting legislation which was anti-gay, anti-other-religions, and generally anti-freedom, would you still be happy about their efforts to change the world? + +Just because they're rich, doesn't mean their political opinion should have more weight than any other citizen. +AlanUsingReddit: > Say the Koch brothers were religious fundamentalists, and they spent all that money supporting legislation which was anti-gay, anti-other-religions, and generally anti-freedom, would you still be happy about their efforts to change the world? + +hmm. Well that is a compelling point. But in a self-reflective sense, how do you ever know yourself that you're holding a destructive and bigoted view? Bill Gates is involved in things that are uncontroversial. + +It would be tempting to argue that these billionaires should only be active in uncontroversial matters. But even Gates doesn't do that. He's putting resources into nuclear power, which is controversial. Even vaccines are controversial in some circles. + +So as a litmus test, I find ""controversy"" to be of limited utility. + +> Just because they're rich, doesn't mean their political opinion should have more weight than any other citizen. + +I initially felt the say way when superPACs came out in force. I agree we have to keep an eye on that, and while still protecting the 1st amendment. + +The only public activities seem to be in the $millions. Like: + +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KochPAC + +I do think there are issues with the Citizen's United case. But for one, I don't know if repealing that would have any affect on the actions of things like KochPAC. And I also lack any substantive argument to say that organization is having a negative effect." +"TOUCHER_OF_SHEEP: Society is made up completely of social constructs. If you want to be a member of society, you should try to meet norms and expectations that don't actively hurt you or others. Are you hurt for getting comfortable clothes that looks half-decent? No. Is your company hurt if you don't? Yes, because they look less professional when you don't meet their normal standard of dress and are less likely to get business from anyone who sees you. + +Don't have a job? Dressing up in athletic attire at work sounds like a really good way to lose one. Obviously, if you already have a job and do that, you got super lucky and can disregard that until you eventually need a new job. + +Finally, do you have a SO? Do you want one? First impressions are often everything, and you're far less likely to draw interest from the kind of people you'll likely want to spend time with in a bar dressed in athletic attire rather than jeans and a blazer. +WildBilll33t: > Is your company hurt if you don't? Yes, because they look less professional when you don't meet their normal standard of dress and are less likely to get business from anyone who sees you. + +I wear what is required and expected while working and for interviews. (I actually work at a gym, so my normal attire is acceptable, but if it weren't, I would follow regulations.) I follow the regulations if they are required (my previous job required somewhat formal attire, and I obliged), but I am questioning why such regulations exist. + +>Finally, do you have a SO? Do you want one? First impressions are often everything, and you're far less likely to draw interest from the kind of people you'll likely want to spend time with in a bar dressed in athletic attire rather than jeans and a blazer. + +The types impressed with attire and conspicuous spending are not the types I'd likely want to spend time with. I've never met a woman I've been interested in at a bar. I worked out with my previous SO often, and she wasn't the least bit interested in what I wore when we were together by ourselves. (Of course, I acknowledge that she would be taken aback if I dressed ""poorly"" to a high class restaurant, so I would dress ""nicely"" if we were going to such a place. I am just questioning why what is considered ""nice"" is considered ""nice"".) + +" +"anonymous123421: >Therefore parents should not be able to voluntarily give up their parental rights and adopt out their child. + +But adoption happens because otherwise the child could starve or have poor nutrition. For the sake of discussion I'll assume all of your claims about adoption's effect on children are correct, even though they are not. + +According to Maslow and scientific consensus, basic sustenance is more important than ""identity-formation,"" because it is the foundation of survival. +krausyaoj: Children can be taken away from parents who abuse or neglect them, but that is not voluntary. I am thinking of parents who decide during pregnancy that they do not want to raise the child. Their only choices should be an abortion or to raise the child. They should not have the option to just give their child away." +"hsmith711: Aside from power consumption, your cons (aka things that suck) are things that will improve with time and improved design. The first touch screen phones and tablets were market disasters and resulted in massive losses for the designers. But with customer feedback, advances in technology, and other innovations smart phones and tablets are common items many of us rely on every day. + +I embrace progress. Perhaps touchscreen vending machines are unnecessary today, but I still encourage anyone trying to improve a product or process! +ASunCame: Sure, but I feel like in every area that it can improve, it can never really surpass a button interface. A button interface is essentially the idealization of a touch interface when it comes to vending snacks. " +"bluefyre73: Twists are done because they are intended to be a plot development or character reveal the audience would not expect to happen. A twist fails completely when it is predictable. When the story is built in a way that makes you think something is going to happen; but in fact, something you never expected occurs, you feel more engaged in the story because it is legitimately unpredictable. There's a reason twists aren't typically revealed until halfway or three quarters of the way through a movie, and that's because a twist revealed too early has no time to subvert your expectations-while one revealed too late has no legitimate impact on the rest of the story. + +No doubt some movies use twists to try to appear ""smart,"" but it has an actual purpose from a storytelling perspective in keeping things atypical. +1k1k1k1k1k1k1k1k1k1k: Thanks for replying. I don't really see what part of my opinion you are challenging. If I understand you correctly, you explained how a plottwist is used. My point it is an overdone and cheap way basically. " +"syzygy_something_els: ""acceptance"" isn't about making you be attracted to something you don't like. at least, I think it shouldn't be. I think what it should be about is this - why are you going around passing judgement on how attractive you find the women around you? when you see another human being pass you by on the street, you might form a snap assessment on how sexy they are - *in your head*. but why voice it? why should they care? + +now, suppose I don't have a glasses fetish. do I come up to guys with glasses i meet at the supermarket and tell them, nope, these lenses on your face aren't doing anything for me, dude, you should really think about getting contacts? no, i do not. because it would be very creepy. + +fat women, however, get a lot of comments, opinions, and advice they never asked for. women in general get this more than men, but fat women in particular. from people in person, and from the media (""5 great weight-loss tips"" etc.). everyone just assumes women want to look pretty, and therefore want to hear feedback on their appearance. and everyone goes on to assume fat women are ashamed of their weight and size. + +acceptance is, if you don't have anything nice to say, keep quiet about it. after all, your preference is nobody's business but your own +MikeysFC: I perfectly understand that, and I agree. Going around and telling people what you think of them is low, and silly. I'm speaking of specifically if someone's makes a move, and you decline. If they ask why and you choose to say I'm not attracted to you, there shouldn't be anything further than that. " +"fanningmace: > However, I think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else's life difficult. One small example is if you work in an industry where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind (like I do). It's helpful to know in advance who is related to who by just looking at a piece of paper. + +What about step-families with mis-matched names? + +Or non-married families where the mother and child have a different last name? + +Should we expect a child living with his/her mother to change his/her last name because their mother remarried and changed her last name? + +> where you deal with a lot of names and families and meeting people blind + +How many people work in industries where they meet people blind and need to know if they're related? My mom kept her last name and it has never been a problem in 30 years. + +> However, I think that a family should have a family name, because otherwise you are choosing to make everyone else's life difficult. + +What about people with very confusing names? I'd say the name Smith-Jones is much easier to say than something Krzyzewski. Does someone with a confusing last name owe it to us to choose a more traditional last name? +NeoshadowXC: The step families and non-married families are fine as they are-- it would be useful as a sign right up front that the kid is adopted or a step child. But of course that only works if all other families use the same name. + +As to your second point, what I'll say is that what other people have been suggesting to me: two last names serves as a better road map for who is related to who. In that way, if there was a widely adopted system where EVERYONE used two last names (like in Spain), there would be more uniformity and would actually make finding connections between people easier. + +As to Smith-Jones vs Krzyzewski, I think Krzyzewski > Smith-Jones. Something about the hyphen. Takes away from the roundness of the name. I'm not going to defend this point of view, I already know it's entirely irrational. To that end, I will say that for every Smith-Jones, you also get a Krzyzewski-Mrzyglocki." +"DerekReinbold: First, you only consider the worst qualities of religion. Somebody who would maim another person because of a disagreement over religious beliefs (i.e. killing all infidels, burning heretics, etc.), were they not religious, would still be terrible. Though religion gives a sense of righteousness to their actions, they would find similar justification elsewhere. + +Second, the practicality of banning religion is ludicrous. Ever read 1984? You'd have to institute a thought police gestapo to even come close. + +Third, most religious people are kind-hearted. Your militant atheism is precluding you from seeing this. You regard people like this as ""ignorant in the traditional sense, in that they do not even know what they are truly supposed to be believing."" Just because you value complete logic, or whatever it is that guides your philosophy, does not mean that something of that nature is important to everyone. Religion can bring a sense of community, of belonging, regardless of its factual veracity. Point is, beside its status as true or false, religion has value. It has value because people have given it value, and in human terms that is meaningful. + +Finally, please consider that your viewpoint is just that, *your* viewpoint. Someone disagreeing with you is not necessarily wrong, they are simply operating from a different set of premises. Understanding this is part of growing up. +StarJeweledPro: First off, I do not think your claim that most people who commit heinous acts in the name of religion would find similar justification elsewhere. Yes, some are evil - however, most have simply been radicalized because of their faith. Take a look at some fundamentalist Muslim countries, where lynch mobs attack women who fail to wear their veils. Are we to somehow assume that every person out of this mass is a sociopath? I do not think that is likely. Yes, some people will continue to be evil, and find different justifications (or channels), but doing away with religion would cause an end to much social tension created by the syncretic difficulties of merging the belief systems, as well as the radicalization effect many more fervent believers suffer. + +Second. You do point out that you would need a ""thought police Gestapo to even come close."" While eliminating *thoughts* (that is, private religious belief which is not expressed to others) is an impossible task, with modern surveillance techniques, as well as the level of societal control which can be readily enacted, eliminating any *display* of religion could be at least attempted. At this time in history, the social backlash and amount of effort needed would be too great even in countries such as Norway and Finland, but there is no reason why such a crackdown could not be at least attempted with some degree of success in the moderate future. + +Your third argument is the most interesting of the arguments, because it argues that religion's positives, when practiced in a ""positive way"" (i.e. liberal/moderate), outweigh its negatives. You then follow up with the claim that [to paraphrase] because I value logic above all else doesn't mean that everyone else does or should. + +The problem here is that logic is, objectively, the supreme trump card. If religion causes these good effects - we must also look at what societal ills it is causing, and then see whether it is causing more good or bad in the world. Simple utilitarianism. Whether it has been given value ""in human terms,"" i.e. without objective calculation or logic, is irrelevant in the ""big picture"" of things. What is important is the overall effect it has on society. Unfortunately, since we don't have a calculator that can tell us how much good versus bad religion has done in the world, we have to guess. + +And what sort of guess we can make? You note that religion brings a sense of community and belonging to many people. But why do we need religion to achieve these things? Why, rather than uniting upon such things as a shared culture, history, or even nation, must we unite upon fairy tales which tell us to stone our children? + +There is no reason other than tradition as far as I can see. The benefits religion provides, at least according to my initial estimates, do not even come close to matching the negatives. Call it cold, call it remote and inhuman - but utilitarianism (at least when not taken to ridiculous extremes) is the best way. + +Finally, you say that my viewpoint is *my* viewpoint, and someone disagreeing with me is not necessarily wrong, but simply operating from a different set of premises. + +What you do not mention is that, by definition, in an argument with two or more distinct ""sides"" which can be taken, someone is always wrong. Someone has to be wrong, or they wouldn't be arguing over it. Because of this, it either means they are operating on incorrect premises, or using premises that may be either correct or incorrect to draw an incorrect conclusion. For example, if someone walked up to you and said that 2 + 2 = 7, would you correct them because their view is obviously incorrect, or would you not do so because they are simply operating on ""different premises"" and therefore entitled to their own view of things? We can say that all views are entitled to equal respect and treatment - however, only one of these views can actually be correct. If I believed otherwise, I would not have come to CMV." +"Mavericgamer: How many partners have you had who were perfectly synchronized to your emotional, spiritual, romantic, and sexual needs/desires? Who wanted to cuddle whenever you did, who wanted the same things in life, who wanted sex when you did, whose schedule never clashed? + +My counter-question is: why on earth is it considered the norm to expect there to be 1 person to do all that, to whom we pledge our life and faithfulness forever and ever, etc? Imagine if this were applied to *literally* anything else, how absurd it would be. Imagine if, once you'd made a friend, you were expected to only ever hang out with that one friend for the rest of your life. Or just that one drinking buddy, or work at just that one job forever. + +Now, there are some differences with relationships and sex, obviously, but the premise still stands. I think everyone has been in some part of a ""love triangle"" at one point or another, and that is caused entirely by this notion that there's this one special person, which just seems absurd when looked at objectively: if there were just one special person, why on earth could someone have feelings for 2 (or more) people at once? + +This has gotten a bit all over the place, but the rub of it is: open relationships/polyamory aren't for everyone, but that doesn't mean they're just for people who are afraid of commitment. I've known some poly couples who have their home and kids along with their separate boy/girlfriends. It's just different, is all. They're just as committed and loving, if not moreso, than the monogamous couples i know. +Caligirlsrock: I hear you. I actually don't believe in 'the one' and don't expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time. I mean there are people that want to work at other places but still remain loyal to their jobs for the benefits. + +Comparing this to work was probably the worst thing I could do but while I can appreciate where you are coming from I don't see how you can develop the intimacy when you have your wife and kids at home and a piece of ass on the side. Isn't part of cultivating that innate connection being able to deny yourself from wanton needs? + +Kind of like when you want to party all night but don't because you have shit to do? I don't know...I get why you said that there is always a triangle or something else you may need / want. But when happy in relationships I didn't feel like I needed other things. + +IRONY: The man I loved the most lied to me for a year about being married. We broke up when I found out...but we were both living abroad and there was no way for me to know he had a wife and child at home. So you must be onto something because I didn't know but he did and was happy as can be. + +I just feel like when you are old and your SO is old...will people still feel the need to have an open relationship? Doubtful from the looks of it." +"Mongoosen42: I haven't watched ""Elementary"", but I have read many of the origional works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. One of the things I really love about ""Sherlock"" is how remarkably true to the books it is, while still being modernized. The comparison scenes you gave about the story of their meeting is a good example. The way they met on the show, including Watson's back-story, is exactly how it was done in the book. The first meeting between them at the university where Holmes was beating a corpse to learn about post mortem bruise development was almost word for word how it happens in the book, right down to the way Holmes analyzed Watson on the spot. The only difference between the show and the books was that in the books Holmes deduced a number of things from his pocket watch, whereas in the show it was his phone. + +And the Characters in the show are, in my opinion, the best representation of the characters as they appear in the book I have ever seen. Particularly Watson! Cumberbatch is fun to watch of course, and his Holmes is, in my opinion, spectacular, but the character that always seems to get messed up in movies is Watson. Because the books are written from his perspective, he never really describes himself in the books, and in some ways his character is the hardest to discern. I think the actor who plays Watson in ""Sherlock"" has done an absolutely phenomenal job of bringing that character to life. + +From your description of ""Elementary"" it is simply not Sherlock Holmes. And that's fine. It make be a perfectly well done television show and very worthy of praise, and I will take your good recommendation and download it. But from your description, it is not Sherlock Holmes, it is simply Sherlock Holmes inspired, or themed if you will. +mrbroscience: That does seem to be the tale of it. Elementary according to other commenters (I've never read the books) are saying it's more a Doyle inspired work, and not really beholden to the true source material. So it could be just another show with neat characters but not really an ""update"" more of a re-imagining. Almost complete re-work. I maintain it is still a good show but now I think i can appreciate them both for what they are instead of comparing them side by side. " +"AntiChri5: Why *shouldn't* it be the norm to have monogamous relationships? + +Most people want an exclusive relationship so exclusive relationships are the norm. A person agrees not to have sex with others because they want their partner to do the same, there is no ""force"" involved. Only a mutual agreement where both parties abide by the same rule. + +If someone wants a non monogamous relationship, they are obligated to inform any potential partners of that so the partner is not deceived. +TaliaLackey: People want monogamous relationships because that is what they were brought up knowing. Following the status quo is not really a compelling enough reason to me. " +"Astromachine: Brows http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/new/ It's the best way to view this sub. + +But to your point, I think of course reddit has a great deal of circle jerking. But people upvote what they want to see. They can upvote it if they think it is interesting or if they want to see a refutation of it. They can also upvote it if they agree. That's the point of the upvote. + +But ultimately, does this matter? Does anybody really post here expecting to get a lot of upvotes? I would hope not, go to /r/adviceanimals or something if you're a karma whore. People are here to talk about stuff because they find the discussion interesting. + +Also, i'm in it for the triangles. +Elemesh: 1. Self posts get no karma, so that's not why people will do it. + +2. Yes, it does matter. It promotes low effort content and forces us to have the same discussion over and over again." +"cacheflow: A simpler question to ask is why doesn't the city of Gotham execute the Joker? Batman has delivered him into police custody numerous times, yet the justice system has not charged him with a capital crime and executed him. + +Therefore, can't we assume that the people of Gotham don't believe in capital punishment? +tbasherizer: I can understand why the state would refrain from making an exception in killing its criminals. Where would the line between normal and extraordinary be drawn? When a state has to systematically deal with people, it's better for it to have mild rules- extreme rules might run out of hand and have an impact on everyone in the jurisdiction. Changing the rules would be difficult because of legislative and other legal processes. + +Batman, on the other hand, isn't in control of a massive machine that might take his intent incorrectly. Batman- an individual- has the mind to deal with every situation in a unique way and is not bound by a protocol that could have unintended consequences. If Batman made it a rule to only kill extraordinarily adept terrorists who repeatedly escape the law, he could change his mind if he noticed himself getting a bit too arbitrary with his batgun." +"huadpe: The arguments against surveillance are nearly always about indiscriminate, mass surveillance. Nobody really has a problem with targeted surveillance. If the government has a warrant to search your house or listen to your phone calls, they can do so. But getting a warrant requires individualized probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime. + +In the analogy, using a pin to open the door is an action that is only taken in extremis to violate the privacy of the occupant for some more important purpose. Likewise, the government should only use its surveillance powers to violate privacy when there is a strong reason to target the particular person(s) being surveilled. +VERYhehheh: No one in the government is reading my emails - it'd be impossible for them to monitor every email sent. Only in extreme cases - where they might catch a terrorist would they violate privacy, otherwise it's a waste of their time." +"CherrySlurpee: Devil's advocate here, but anyways... + +We have those laws that protect us from discrimination on select things. Race/Religion/Sexual Preference/etc. We decided those were important not because they're any more sacred than anything else, but because of the degree of discrimination that we've seen in the past, and because they're easy to identify. + +You're right, there are a billion things that people get discriminated on every day. + +We have stuff like favorite sports teams, what kind of car you drive, and even the stuff you brought up like belief in aliens. That stuff may result in discrimination, but it's not as widespread or as apparent as race or religion. And also, if you do believe in crazy stuff, it's very easy to hide it from your professional life. You can't really hide being black. While you can ""hide"" your religion, religious discrimination is very powerful and if anyone wants to, they can fairly easily find out if you follow a religion. + +Height, weight, and attractiveness are probably reasons for discrimination just as much as some of the protected ones - but those are very hard to quantify. What is tall? What is short? What is attractive? + +So it all boils down to a few things that we, as a society, have selected as being not only important, but easy to see. +balancespec2: Height weight and attractiveness are things you cannot change (well some of them are anyway), those are irrelevant to this point. + +The point being, you can ""hide"" your views when appropriate, and it would be wise to do so if you think they may be used against you. + +Why should a view be legally protected by society just because it happens to be a popular one? That seems to go against the concept of free speech, to elevate ""Jesus"" or ""Allah"" over aliens, just because belief in the first two is more popular. + +Furthermore, why is it socially acceptable for me to insult a guy who wears a tin foil hat, but not socially acceptable for me to insult someone who wears a turban? Both wear them due to strong personal beliefs." +"scottevil110: The only issue I see here is that you're talking about teaching something in a classroom setting which, I'm sure we can agree, is far more effectively learned through experience. + +Classrooms teach basic, objective facts because they're the groundwork of greater knowledge. Even the most savvy of Googlers needs to know the basis of what they're researching before they can know what direction to direct their prowess on the search engines. I agree that schools should be evolving more with the times and acknowledging the fact that being able to find something on the internet isn't ""cheating,"" but rather wise resource management, but I think that's a matter of simply adjusting the standards by which they evaluate students, rather than changing the subject matter entirely. + +A large part of school, also, is attempting to provide the most objective picture of the world without editorializing, which can be tough on the internet. Something like history class comes to mind. School can teach basic facts and consequences that are going to be tough to find on the internet, knowing that you have a trustworthy source for your information. + +With something like math, it's incredibly important to understand WHY things come out the way they do, rather than just being able to punch it into a graphing calculator and seeing what comes out. It greatly increases your grasp of the concept behind why something integrates the way it does, which allows you to make better conclusions about it. + +I would amend the stance to say that schools need to accept the fact that there are new, valid tools to gaining knowledge that didn't used to exist, and simply integrate that into our expectations of students, rather than saying we need to actively attempt *teaching* them how to use this technology. The fact is that nothing can teach you those things better than just doing it. +HP844182: I agree with just about everything you said, but my only concern was about learning objective pictures of the world, especially history. As a student you are generally locked into whichever world view was selected for your textbook (highlighted by the states that chose which version of history to teach, and which events to show and which to conveniently fail to mention). I'd argue you get a better idea of the world by being able to see all of these different view points that may not paint your country in the best light. " +"dale_glass: ""Wrong"" is a word that pertains to morality. So it's odd that you don't want a moral argument. + +But anyway: + +* Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married? +* Can new people be added? +* How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh? +* Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement? +* Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be. +* What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree? +* There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really pissed off people. +* Who do the children belong to? +* The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict. + +I don't oppose the idea in principle, but the practical issues seem to be tough to solve, and I doubt they're about to get worked out tomorrow. Maybe as a society in a decade or two we'll reach some sort of general agreement about what such a thing is supposed to look and work like, but today it doesn't seem like we're there. +TwoFlewAway: I suppose I used the word wrong because I think a lot of the major arguments against it are about morality. + +> •Is everybody equal in such a marriage? Does it vary depending on the time they've been married? + +I feel like this is an argument against polygamous relationships in general. I think all spouses would be equal (in the eyes of the law) unless something had been agreed in the form of a prenuptial agreement. + + > •How is it structured? Is it 3 women married to a man, do they form a ring, or a mesh? + +Again, this also relates to polygamous relationships in general rather than marriages. It would be up to the people in the relationship. + +> •Related to the above, how does divorce work? Can it fail due to disagreement? + +Divorce works as it always has. Marriages would still be between 2 people. You would just be able to be married to more than 1 person at a time. As with the current system, you can take your spouse to court to sort out disagreements. + +> •Is there a size limit? What if a whole town decides to get married, imagine the work untangling that will be. + +If prenuptial agreements had been made it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult. It would be more complex sure, but I don't think it's that great an argument against it. + +> •What if one person is in the hospital and there are two others that can make a life or death decision, and disagree? + +As currently, medical staff have the power to make decisions for a person who lacks capacity. They could take over the decision making for the short-term (acting in the best medical interests of the patient) and the spouses can go to court to challenge any longer term decisions they make e.g. turning off life support machine. This would be the type of issue that people would be encouraged to address in pre-nuptial agreements. + +> •There are practical social issues. Eg, rich man gets himself 20 wives. Enough of that will skew the ratio in the community, resulting in some really pissed off people. + +The wives are also free to marry other people. As it stands currently rich men could have lots of girlfriends currently, why would this be more of a problem if polygamous marriage was allowed? + +> •Who do the children belong to? + +I've already addressed this. Their parents. + +> •The court system will probably need an upgrade. We're talking about dramatically increasing complexity and opportunity for conflict. + +Well yes, but I'm not arguing that it should be done tomorrow. There are loads of issues that would need to be figured out but I think that they *can* be figured out. + + +" +"blackflag415: I would include another category in what you disallow in your OP - upskirts or similarly harassing sexualized photos of women. + +I think you need to examine the difference between what someone has a right to do, and what someone should do according to a socially agreed standard of politeness. I have every right to belch loudly in public. But it is considered rude by most people, so I probably shouldn't. Similarly, just taking a photograph without asking for permission is considered rude by most people so one probably shouldn't do it even if one has the right to. + +Further more the people being photograph have every right to their reaction. Just as one has the freedom to photograph, the photographed people have the freedom to react and declare their offense. Freedom is for everyone, not only photographers. +AnIrishViking: So upskirts and the like would be lumped in with harassment, similar to my point about paparazzi. In those cases, the subject is being singled out and photographed in a violating manner. + +> Similarly, just taking a photograph without asking for permission is considered rude by most people so one probably shouldn't do it even if one has the right to. + +This is what I'm trying to argue against. I don't see this as rude, you're in a public place which I understand as a statement of ""I don't have a problem with being observed as a human being in a public setting."" If this were not the case, you wouldn't be there. + +Lastly, I understand that they have a right to a reaction, what I don't agree with is the expectation of someone asking permission. They can complain all they like, but I don't see it as a reasonable expectation to have someone else go out of their way to ask if you are ok with being in the background of their photo. " +"incruente: >Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered. + +You could say pretty much the same things about atheism. Unless and until you can really prove the superiority of that viewpoint from a truly unbiased position, are you willing to make the same demands on not teaching children atheism as you are about religion? + +>I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction + +What constitutes a religious meeting? Does a family reunion where everyone prays count? + +>I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that. + +I think they are. I don't know a while lot of people that send their kids to church but don't go themselves. +CaptainCfo: I'm not saying that they should be atheist, Im saying that they should be required to make the decision 100% by themselves. + +By religious meeting places I mean places like churches, mosques, etc. + +By that, I meant if they can't bring them to church, they would have to take hours of their own free time to teach them about every single thing in their religion. +" +"infernalangelberkele: Excellent write-up. I'm a libertarian who supports the NIT, but you obviously put a lot of thought into this post. + +I never thought of some of the points you brought up here. However, I'm not convinced that the existing welfare state would deal with illegal immigration better than basic income would. If you had basic income, you could get rid of the minimum wage. You would have to pay workers the competitive rate set by the market. Since illegal immigrants can't access the basic income scheme, they would be living on starvation wages. So BI would lower illegal immigration, whereas the existing scheme would not. +gobears10: What about right now? We have undocumented immigrants in the U.S. being paid below the minimum wage. How certain are you that BI would block illegal immigration? Maybe even the competitive market wages in the U.S. would offer a higher standard of living for undocumented workers in the U.S. than in their home countries. I know some states offer in-state tuition for young undocumented immigrants, but they largely cannot draw welfare benefits already. So I don't see how Basic Income would ameliorate this. + +And again, I argued that there would be negative effects to passing Basic Income while simultaneously getting rid of minimum wage laws. There would be no strong countervailing force against companies that artificially lower pay via oligopsony power in the labor market. + +My solution to undocumented immigration without implementing BI is to offer a pathway to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Pass the DREAM Act. Put illegal immigrants in the back of the line, make them pay back taxes, have them learn English, make them work for 10 years, have them do community service, etc. Then strengthen our borders to stem illegal border crossings. " +"bananaruth: > ""Revenge porn"" can be extremely hurtful, there is no doubt about that. +But so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation. + +This isn't a good argument. For example, I could say, ""So can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car."" You haven't shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine. Certainly behavior between disgruntled ex-lovers can be criminal. + +> Only the most stupid perpetrators will be caught. + +So, they shouldn't be caught if they're stupid? Or there shouldn't be laws because most people can get away with the crime? That doesn't make sense. It is certainly difficult to prove rape in most instances, but that doesn't make it not a crime or something that we shouldn't have laws against. + +> Worst off all, these laws will poison relationships, because they promote paranoia towards the people who are closest to us. + +No. This is a terribly small concern, imo. + + +longlivedp: > You haven't shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine. Certainly behavior between disgruntled ex-lovers can be criminal. + +I was trying to argue that hurting someone emotionally is not a *sufficient* criterion for making something a crime. Other criteria have to be fulfilled too. In the case of ""revenge porn"" I can't see any. That seems to be the only argument. + +> So, they shouldn't be caught if they're stupid? + +Laws that infringe in civil liberties should be weighed according to cost and benefit. If a law can be shown to have little benefit but a high cost then yes, it's a bad law." +"MageZero: You recognize that there is structural racism, and you are white. As a result, it does affect you personally as you benefit from it. It's just that you don't go out of your way to look for the benefits. It's not so much that it doesn't affect you *personally*, it's that it doesn't affect you *negatively*. +selfhatingyank: But I don't believe that I have any duty to act as a result of something that happened before my birth. It is *nice* to be charitable, to vote left-wing, and to help out black people because I got a leg up being white, but I have no duty to change my behavior based on something I cannot control." +"CherrySlurpee: Movies, TV, etc all bring forth emotions. Shit, video games do too. Sports have brought me more joy than any other form of media, and also more heartbreak. But without the heartbreak, the joy isn't so good, so the heartbreak isn't a bad thing. + +go ahead, watch this and try not to feel anything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LacNKW8EXzA + +or watch this and try not to feel awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jmisv1Spck + +Becoming a fan of a team gives you a small emotional attachment to them. Now yes, people over do it, but the vast majority of us enjoy it for what it is. + +And shit, some of those moments are [over 20 years in the making](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-adnOYdqJg) +poto832: I'll admit, I feel empathy for the sprinter from the first video. I can imagine how crushing it was to have that happen, but still, I don't care that he lost. It doesn't affect me either way. + +The second video is sweet and uplifting and all, but still, it just doesn't matter to me. It's even further away from my concern because that's a very fabricated moment, and a completely atypical experience in a football game." +"scottevil110: These are good points, and I'm happy to see someone chalk it up to actual reasons instead of just ""banks are evil"" for once. That's a nice change around here. + +While these are problems, the economy is not destined to fail. It's a living organism like anything else, and it will adapt to the changing time. It's a self-correcting problem in many cases. If there are only 3 rich people left, they can't get richer anymore because there isn't anyone left to give them money for anything. It becomes in their best interest to keep money flowing through the economy. + +Regarding student loans, you've hit the nail on the head. It's far too easy to get a loan these days, but what is the alternative? If banks stop giving out loans for colleges, the new rally cry will be ""Banks are discriminating against poor people and making it so only rich people can go to college and better themselves. The rich get richer!"" And they'd be right. + +The root of this problem isn't that it's so easy to get a loan. It's that everyone believes they need to go to college now. People take out $100,000 in debt, without any idea what they're even going to spend it on, and then only later does it occur to them that they have to pay that back somehow. And since we've got this mentality now that college is basically High School: Part 2, colleges can basically charge whatever they want, because we're all under the impression that if you don't go to college, you're basically fucked. +WumboWombo: I'm not so sure your first point is true. If there are only 3 rich people left, they will have A LOT of money. They have no incentive to circulate it, as it won't earn them more money, at least in theory. + +I believe we both agree on that, but wouldn't it do more good than harm? The college market is oversaturated, we agree, people are convinced they need a degree to get a good job. What defines ""a good job""? My friend makes less than me, but he doesn't have an $800 a month loan payment. When my loan is paid off, I'll be better off, but I'll be in my 40's, my life at least 1/2 over. + +If loans were harder to get, don't you think people would start to realize how much they don't need college? + +" +"piepi314: I think you're looking at this all wrong. While I agree that they desensitize people to a fire alarm, it isn't all about getting everyone out as quickly as possible. A lot of the purpose of fire drills is to give staff an opportunity to practice herding people to safety. + +Also, keep in mind that even in the event of a real fire, people have a relatively large amount of time to get to safety when it is in a large building. So in a matter of speaking, desensitizing people helps calm people down and prevent a panic that causes harm to people. +ludicrousursine: > A lot of the purpose of fire drills is to give staff an opportunity to practice herding people to safety. + +This seems like a good point, but as I touched on in my original post, the only times I have really seen this in practice are in elementary-high school where the teacher leads people out through the nearest exit, takes a strict head count, and the administrative staff inspects. However, in my experience this stops being the case for drills in other places. In university classes when there is a drill, the professors generally don't give instructions on what to do, nor do they check that people behind them actually leave. In dorms and living spaces, most of the people aren't even within view of the staff, and staff is among the first to leave the building, not giving instruction to people who are exiting their rooms. I really don't see much point in this. + +Even in grade school it seems like the frequency is far too high. Multiple drills every month seems ridiculous, when everyone has the procedure down after the first couple drills." +"420big_poppa_pump420: One thing that you have to remember is that Hank is willing to let things that he would normally be against go if they serve the greater good. + +Remember when Buck was banned from Jugstore Cowboy's? Obviously Hank would prefer Buck not spend all day at a strip club, but because his presence was a negative influence at Strickland Propane, he facilitated Buck being unbanned. + +Dale is dirt stupid. Despite the affair being obvious to everyone, Dale was under the impression that he was living in a happy marriage. + +Telling Dale not only would have destroyed him, it would have torn his family apart. Telling Dale about the affair would have benefited no one. The affair was not harming Dale or Joseph. By Hank remaining silent, the only people hurt by the affair were Nancy and John Redcorn. +Prof_Acorn: You have me at the ""greater good"" side of the argument, but I would disagree with the following + +>""The affair was not harming Dale or Joseph."" + +I would say Joseph not knowing is real father is harming him in some ways and considering that Dale only had sex once a year on his birthday, his and Nancy's relationship was harmed as well." +"NaturalSelectorX: > I come from a wealthy family and have had very little experience with people from the lower socioeconomic spectrum, which probably shapes my view of the wealth ladder and how one climbs from rung to rung. + +This is all you needed to say. You lived in a higher income area with schools that were better funded. Your parents could give you attention and guidance instead of working multiple jobs. You probably made some connections along the way. All of this will get you into a better college with better prospects. You weren't more motivated, you were just lucky. + +The real nail in the coffin is that there are more people than there are well-paying jobs. Even if everybody were ultra-motivated hard-workers, there would be the same amount of people making minimum wage. You can't really live on minimum wage. +SilverSpoonDude: So two points on this: + +I didn't use a connection to get into school and I didn't use a connection to get any of my jobs. Many people in my office don't have a college degree and even more at my last job, which was a government job that literally a high schooler was qualified for. I don't think my luck helped me in this case whatsoever, I just worked hard to earn a recommendation and kept going. + +> Even if everybody were ultra-motivated hard-workers, there would be the same amount of people making minimum wage. + +I disagree. If every person was an ultra-motivated hard worker, our productivity as a nation would be higher and we would be able to pay higher wages. Not saying there wouldn't be people making minimum wage, but there sure would be more middle class level jobs." +"Blaster395: This is a terrible idea, because it would cause spiralling hyperinflation and economic catastrophe. + +No amount of voting for a minimum salary of $0 will stop the person who asked for a salary of 10^9999999999999 from single-handedly increasing the minimum wage to a ridiculous level (in the quadrillions). Upon this happening there are only two possible results. + +1. 100% unemployment because there isn't enough money in existence to meet the minimum wage. + +2. World record hyperinflation as the Government tries to print large enough denomination notes to ensure the minimum wage can be met. + +Both of these results would irreparably destroy the entire economy and drop living standards to rock bottom for everyone. +jetpacksforall: That's what GDP adjustment is for. Obviously employers can't pay people more banknotes than there are atoms in the universe. Also you yourself would not be taking home that salary: you'd be on unemployment or earning minimum wage." +"learhpa: Killing people over their words, or their paintings or drawings, or their symbolic speech, is fundamentally immoral. + +Yielding to the demands of someone who says ""don't *say* this or I will kill you"" encourages people to make that kind of demand. + +Thus the appropriate reaction to people who make those kinds of demands is to refuse them, and to do the exact opposite of what is being demanded - to teach them, and their fellows, that such demands will *not* be successful, and thereby to discourage such demands in the future. + +helpful_hank: >Yielding to the demands of someone who says ""don't say this or I will kill you"" encourages people to make that kind of demand. + +I only think this is true when it's skin off our backs to yield it. You're talking about appeasement -- giving up the Sudetenland to Hitler, etc. Isn't the proper response to being demanded to stop making images of Mohammed, ""Okay. Nobody cares."" It's not like we're surrendering something important. By making a big deal out of it, we encourage them to make a big deal out of it. By treating childishness like childishness, and giving it its harmless little space to play in, we are yielding nothing, really. + +>to teach them, and their fellows, that such demands will not be successful, and thereby to discourage such demands in the future. + +I don't think that what you're recommending teaches them that such demands will not be successful -- it teaches them that they were right, we are as horrible as they think. + + +If someone pushes you for no reason, and you fall down, it's clear who the aggressor is. If someone pushes you for no reason and you push back, and they push back, and you push back, and they push back -- you've entered into it on their level, and it's no longer clear that you're innocent people being attacked. You're just one of two partners doing the asshole dance. + +They now have a great deal more propaganda to show their recruits that the West is full of awful infidels." +"skiman71: So the basis of your argument is that we should kill those that are mentally or physically challenged because they are a burden to our society as a whole. What about people on welfare then? Don't they just place another burden on the government and on society? What makes them any different? What about the elderly in rest homes? They are also a burden on society, yet it would be grossly inhumane to kill them for that reason. +CardboardOdyssey: Well, if they have a chance to recover and are mentally functional, then yes, it would be a bad idea to kill them off. I'm talking about those who were most likely born with an illness that renders them either vegetables or forever-children. Maybe after a certain age we should euthanize the senile, but that's getting into soylent green territory." +"[deleted]: They were rapists. They deserved to be hung, honestly, or spend life in prison. They should never play professional sports, and should be stuck in a MickyD's the rest of their life. They comitted a horrible atrocity. They ruined the girl's life. She will never go a day without being tramatized for it. The Media protected them, they didn't do anything to make the boys feel an ounce of pain for what they did. +Doobz87: Okay...well....for one, that didn't really change my mind, and two, that girl I'm pretty sure is dead, soooooo.....what you said is mostly invalid.....why post in a cmv if you're not going to even try?" +"Namemedickles: Hm. I want to be careful to not spiral off into vague and generalized arguments back and forth, making this thread unproductive. Can you provide a specific example of what your talking about? + + * What is an example of something we enjoy in the west? + + * How is this thing dependent upon the subjugation of people in another country? + + * How is this necessary? In other words, how is this not attainable through other means? +Bunyardz: Almost every product we consume exploited a developing nation at some point. The raw materials were likely bought from a poor nation for a very low price. The materials were probably processed in a sweatshop with underpaid workers in poor conditions. The economic superiority of the west, the reason that we have nice cars, buildings, a high GDP, everything about our nations that are comparatively ""better"" than their counterparts in poorer countries, is perpetuated by the globalized trade system that preserves power and wealth in the West, while keeping developing nations in a cycle of poverty. " +"[deleted]: Yes and no. + +Women's only hours at gyms are there to provide women with a safe and comfortable time to work out without the fear of being scrutinized, ogled, or becoming the object of over sexualization. Imagine being a woman in your workout clothes on a treadmill just doing your thing, would you really want a ton of guys staring at you as you work out? Or, hear cat calls and whistles as you work out? +Teganily: I should appologize for my wording, when I said ""If I pay equal fees"" I meant it in more of a general sense, one of the reasons I posted this was because as a women I've never been witness to, or subject to cat calls. Now this isn't to claim that my experience is anything more then simple anecdote but it is where my confusion roots from, are these things a major problem in gyms? I've never seen or heard of such a case on my campus. Also is it not possible that women oggle dudes and/or make inappropriate comments toward them? Should this be cause for fully segregated hours?" +"Arch-duke: Society is pretty inconsistent on this issue. Permitting cigarettes, banning weed, permitting trans fats, banning raw milk. The lines are mostly arbitrary. As far as changing your view, try to think of a banned consumer good you would support the legal sale of. Heroin? Meth? These things aren't banned to prevent the harm people might inflict on themselves, but for the cost that harm incurs for society. + +That is to say, laws aren't in place for your benefit or freedom (not first, anyhow) - when a conflict forms between the rights/freedom/interests of the individual vs that of the group, the group normally gets right of way. Raw milk is banned because allowing its sale would cost society by way of sick people. +beetus_wrangler: I'm not sure what you're driving at—so raw milk should be banned because lots of things are arbitrarily banned? Or because society doesn't have an obligation to take care of people who hurt themselves by taking risks? If it's the second one, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least in developed countries. Modern societies generally *do* agree that adults should be allowed to take risks, and there is generally an expectation that you won't be left to die because you [became morbidly obese/crashed your motorcycle/got fugu poisoning/fell off a mountain]. + +I also don't agree that this is the proper use of food safety laws. Consumer protection legislation is there to make sure that consumers are adequately informed about what they're eating, and consumers of raw milk *are* adequately informed in places where it's legal. These laws were written to protect consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers, not from themselves." +"disaffectedmalcntent: I agree that giving anyone and everyone access to any gun they want is a bad idea. I also think it current regulations are lax to say the least. But you are making a very broad statement. Guns may be the most efficient means of inflicting damage to another person, and therefore are the most popular choice for those who wish to inflict damage. But that doesn't mean they cause violence. There was countless violence before guns, and even if you removed all of them from people today it wouldn't stop violence, it just might make it so that violent acts don't so regularly end up with one party dead. +themoo12345: I wouldn't claim to say that guns have caused all violence, of course I know that violence has existed since the first humans threw rocks at another tribe. What I would claim, however, is that guns by their very nature of being so efficient at violence they allow people who otherwise would't be capable of exercising violent acts to harm others. For example, Adam Lanza (the Newtown shooter) would simply not have been physically capable of murdering all of those people because if he had any other weapon than a firearm he would have been subdued fairly quickly by teachers and the authorities. + +I guess a more accurate way to say how I feel about guns is that they magnify violence and allow many more people to become violent actors than other types of weapons." +"EagenVegham: The problem is that they are getting and will get plenty of backlash for what happened. Sanders is the largest supporter of their movement currently running and they decided to attack his rally. This doesn't paint them in the best of light and marginalizes a lot of the things they are trying to say. + +It would have served them better to attack another candidate with a much lesser position as it would do exactly what you said, force that issue to the front of their campaign. This doesn't work as well for Sanders because we know what his plans are and he has support for it, but this would have been great against Hillary or Trump as they haven't put much focus on the issue and their response to it could sway many people's opinions on their campaigns. +bayernownz1995: >The problem is that they are getting and will get plenty of backlash for what happened + +Sure, but my point is just that if you are gonna interrupt someone, you get the least backlash with him + +>This doesn't work as well for Sanders because we know what his plans are and he has support for it + +I didn't know about it very much. I had never seen the racial injustice page on his site, nor have I seen him make a major point out of it publicly. That doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't taken a stance, but it means that he hasn't been stressing it as much as many people would like. + +Republican candidates are never going to respond to BLM people because they don't need the black vote or the liberal vote. They would just use it as an excuse to drum up support on points like ""look at how extreme these people have gotten! political correctness is ridiculous""" +"ppmd: Two issues with giving: + +1) The method of giving + +Different methods will lead to different results. Giving to your local homeless shelter, food bank or what not is generally a good thing, as the money will be used in an appropriate way to buy basic services for people as opposed to dropping a twenty in a junkies cup on the tenderloin, which will be used to buy crack and won't really help anyone. If you are going to give, give in a reasonable and responsible fashion that actually helps instead of just helping you feel better. + +2) the opportunity cost of giving + +Money that is given away can't be used for other purposes, such as buying things to speed up the economy/employ the homeless (think [streetwise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetWise)), pay your own bills, taxes or whatnot. Sure if you have extra funding that you'd not be using for anything useful, its a great way to be, but AFAIK most people don't have extra money they can just through away. +Ima_Burnthis: There is a similar newspaper in my town that I usually try to purchase when I see the vendors. As to the final sentence, not to get too religious but I am Christian and giving is important to me (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12:41-44), and not just from my excess. I believe I should be giving of my time and money past the point where I am in massive excess, so the personal need for the money does not create a big problem for me. " +"5510: **""Most"" older games are not referred to as classics though. Most older games DON'T stand the test of time, and are forgotten.** + +And yes, there are definitely some games that everybody acts like are still great, when they actually would be shitty (today) without nostalgia. Probably the best example of this is Goldeneye 64, a great game at the time that people feel a lot of nostalgia for, but is almost objectively bad by any modern standard. But I don't think that applies to all ""classics."" + +But try looking at the issue in reverse. There are some modern games which are well received despite the fact that they don't really push the envolope in terms of modern technology. Or they have some nice graphics, but they aren't games where graphics are critical, and the rest of the game could have been made years ago. + +I mean like at Starcraft II. It was very popular, despite the fact that it's not really modern. Even at release, it was basically a ten year old game with a bit more polish and some graphics boost. Or league of legends, one of the most popular games in the world. I'm not a computer expert, but I'm guessing it's not exactly pushing the envelope of modern technology. The graphics aren't groundbreaking to begin with, and the game would be almost the exact same experience with older graphics. And the rest of it doesn't seem advanced at all. + +I mean I havn't played the newer smash bros very much, but other than looking better, are the significantly technologically improved from smash bros 64? + +______ + +That being said, if your point is just ""people only think some older classics are good because of nostalgia goggles,"" well that view can't really be changed because it borders on fact rather than opinion. + +Although you do seem to be implying a game has to hold up to modern standards to be a classic, which I strongly disagree with. Yeah, Goldeneye sucks by modern standards, but it's still a classic for how good it was at the time. I mean I'm no car expert, but aren't many ""classic"" antique cars objectively worse than similar quality modern cars? +cstir15: To address the antique car comment: I think that's both a good and bad comparison. Yes, many of them might not be considered better in terms of aesthetics but some of the antiques are better vehicles. Take the Mustang. In its pinnacle, the Mustang was a solidly built car with a big, strong engine. They then had a big decline where they weren't nearly as fast and a whole lot crappier. The old car is in fact better. Now there are new ones that are a whole lot more futuristic AND have the old ones beat in terms of performance. People will always like the old ones though because of, what I believe, is a nostalgic sense. It goes back to the saying I hear a lot: ""the good old days."" People always remember things in the past a lot better than they actually were by comparison to things that aren't as good today. I think that some games are considered classics and still hold up that standing today but those titles are few and far between. That is my main argument. " +"sharshenka: The one part of your view that I think can be easily changed is the idea that PUA and TRP are the only game in town for increasing confidence and social ability. + +[How to Win Friends and Influence People](http://sameffect.com/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-summary/) was written in 1936, has sold 15 million copies, and spawned all kinds of seminars and other self-help books and communities. I've read it, and found it very helpful in thinking about how to talk to other people and deal with professional situations. It's a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings. + +I'm glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially. However, if you want to find communities that don't require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist. +FarOrAMess: I'm yet to read this book, but I don't think it's comparable to those active communities that regulary suggest and discuss those concepts in order to help people improve theirselves. + +Also, it always feels like those books give you information that helps you only halfway through the process, without being goal-directed. That kind of mentality is necessary for the kind of people who will likely take interest, especially when procrastinators are so common within them." +"scottevil110: I think the common feeling is that hard work isn't necessarily a virtue on its own, but preferable to entitlement. That you should feel better about having worked for something on your own, rather than having it given to you. + +The idea that you should work efficiently is shared among most of society, hence the saying ""Work smarter, not harder."" I think a lot of value is placed in getting the most results with the least amount of actual effort (as long as that doesn't just mean shuffling the effort onto someone else, of course). + + +longlivedp: That makes sense. + +Of course, in many corporate environments you are *always* shuffling effort to someone else because people are chronically overworked. So I think there is no shame in drawing a line in the sand." +"huadpe: The key difference is that religion is an important social and family custom that people cannot easily discard. People are raised in their religion. Their families adhere to it and bond over it. They go home for the high holy days or break the ramadan fast together. + +People find deep solace and meaning in religion as well. For many people, it has helped them through dark or difficult times, and religious scriptures may have been what they fell back on when nothing else was looking good for them. + +None of that is the case for a fad diet. +resonator97: The fact that religion is deeply tied to social and family customs is irrelevant. + +If something is traditional and ""stupid"" people bash on it. People, however, should respect other peoples religions because it does not, for the most part, involve them and for some religion makes them feel better. + +Some of these diets do in fact make individuals feel better and if it is working for them, even if some debate the science behind it, why bash the people who take them on?" +"Rikkety: I can think of one metric. + +The USA is still the only country to have put a man on the moon. + +Also, they still have the highest number of Nobel Prize winners. + +Yep, come to think of it, when it comes to scientific and technological achievement, I would argue that the USA is, in fact, the greatest country in the world. +Vietnom: Historically, yes. I'm talking about today. What are we doing today? Our space program was recently de-funded. Our healthcare companies are failing to innovate. Our scientists aren't making any breakthroughs nor do they seem on the path to do so. Our best current innovation is what, SnapChat? " +"[deleted]: you may not like the extremists causing a ruckus about a controversial issue because it doesn't directly change laws. But if all of those protests didn't happen, and if hollywood hadn't been subliminally but disproportionally injecting homosexuality into TV and Movies, would New Mexico have just legalized gay marriage? Would people have had enough exposure to homosexuality to understand it and legalize gay marriage? it's annoying, but it's gotta happen. +aplicable: Not necessarily. The existence of gay marriage doesn't necessarily coincide with the existence of homosexual people, so I find your point invalid as far is exposure to the public. I think a primary issue blocking the evolution of the case of gay marriage is that homosexual people aren't willing enough to make themselves available to the public. The reason why MLK's programs worked so well is because black people don't hide themselves among the population (even that that isn't really possible). Homosexual people don't make them available to the public as much and so I disagree that groups have to cause a ruckus. I think if homosexuals made themselves more apparent and lodged formal referendums towards their respective governments, they would get a lot further than by making groups with events that are consistently innefective." +"sillybonobo: You are focusing only on the consequences (really only maximizing hedons) for the person being plugged in. + +However, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole? Certainly kidnapping the world's top AIDS researcher wouldn't be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness. + +Also, assume that the hook up is only temporary. What plans have you interfered with? Did the person miss something important? Alternatively, if you take someone OFF the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness. + +Another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons. I'm not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable. + +>Thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process. It would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone. + +You can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness. +CMV12: >However, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole? Certainly kidnapping the world's top AIDS researcher wouldn't be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness. + +Why? The researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible. In his virtual world he'd cure AIDS and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has. Maybe he'd regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life. Denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me. + +>Also, assume that the hook up is only temporary. What plans have you interfered with? Did the person miss something important? Alternatively, if you take someone OFF the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness. + +I concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards. Assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected. + +>Another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons. I'm not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable. + +The machine is not a 24/7 sex drugs and rocknroll party. It gives you the most valuable mental state you have. If you get happiness from a life of monk-like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine. + +>>Thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process. It would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone. + +>You can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness. + +I'm not sure I understand this part. Plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me. Everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness. The end of suffering. How can you argue against that? +" +"illfatedpupulon: A red light camera can not issue a citation for a moving violation. + +It can only issue a fine that breaks a rule against city code. + +Like many other cities, Fort Worth has red light cameras, but you can't be compelled to pay them. No one pays them around here because it's toothless because the courts decided that only a live officer can issue a citation for a moving violation. + +Basically, as the law sees it, any automated system can not and does not have the jurisdiction to ticket anyone for anything. That is only reserved for police officers and troopers. +neotecha: > because it's toothless because the courts decided that only a live officer + +This makes sense to me. I highly dislike the trend because intuitively, I think the legal process should be based on human interaction. But I still think that my logic holds (that Red Light Cams could open similar litigation against speeders, based on similar process). + +Perhaps we can address this part: + +> Like many other cities, Fort Worth has red light cameras, but you can't be compelled to pay them. + +Are there any cities/towns where you *can* be compelled to pay?" +"MPixels: Two people stand for an election. Hitler & Satan. + +You have four options: + +1. Vote Hitler: Hitler gets a greater proportion of the vote + +2. Vote Satan: Satan gets a greater proportion of the vote + +3. Don't vote: You don't affect the election + +4. Blank/None of the Above/Re-open nominations (the latter should be an option in all elections: They each get an unaffected proportion of the vote OR (best case scenario) get a lower proportion of the vote and your opposition to both Hitler and Satan is recorded + +All that said, if you have a system where ""blank"" votes are simply discarded then yes, the vote is wasted, but that is not the voter's fault +LukasFT: In my country, a blank vote legally counts as an invalid vote... So it really doesn't affect the election in any way... + +But I think it's a good idea with the ""re-open nominations""-option, as long as it's legally binding (I.e. 20% vote for new nominations, a new election has to be held within half a year or something)" +"GnosticGnome: >generally when people say something is ""overrated,"" they mean, ""this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets."" + +This is perhaps a little unfair. Certainly many people do mean ""I like it"" when they say something is great or ""I don't like it"" when they say something is bad or terrible. But as you point out, the terms can mean something much more germane than that. When a thoughtful critic says he enjoyed a movie, he is not saying the same thing as when he calls it great. + +Just so, many people do in fact merely mean that they didn't like a movie when they call it overrated. But many others use it correctly - they do mean that they've looked at its merit (I don't know that I want to get into the issue of what criteria should be used) and believe others are making a mistake when they rate it highly. + +In short, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people calling something ""overrated""/""underrated"" are any more likely to be lazy than people calling something ""bad"", great"", or any other judgment. If anything, I think the people calling something overrated/underrated are less likely to be lazy. They have at least gone to the trouble of learning what others say about the issue. + +Admittedly, I don't look at movie reviews so often as product reviews. When I see product reviews calling something overrated or underrated, my experience is that the person making the review has done more research than the average reviewer. +DHCKris: I understand where you're coming from, but I have seen people use the phrase ""overrated"" when they've heard something is amazing, or saw it on IMDB's top 250 or something, and didn't enjoy it. + +I think it's hard to argue that influence didn't take place. + +Let's say you heard that Velvet Underground & Nico is one of the greatest albums of all time (it is). You heard it completely removed from its historical context. You might think it sounds like shit (it does), that it is too repetitive, that Lou Reed and Nico have terrible singing voices, etc. But the reason it is great is BECAUSE it sounds like shit. It was basically a big ""fuck you"" to commercialized, over-produced rock and roll, and showed that you could create something innovative and experimental on a tiny budget with limited recording equipment. The guitars are tuned wrong on purpose to give it a unique sound. I think music is more ""stuff that sounds interesting"" than ""stuff that sounds good and appealing."" The grating, dissonant chords of punk rock that VU anticipated might not sound lovely or beautiful, but they create an emotional feeling, they stimulate you aurally in a way pop music hadn't before. That's why people love it. + +But even after reading all that, you might say, ""I don't get it. Music is supposed to sound good, and this doesn't sound good. People like it because it sounds shitty? This is so stupid and overrated!"" But that would be making a judgment about other people that is uncalled for. Why can't you just say, ""well, okay, this isn't for me, but it was influential, and this is why, but I don't understand why that makes it good. Anybody care to explain?"" + +I guess this could end up becoming a semantic argument. I suppose I'm only talking about when people use ""overrated"" in this particular way. Basically my argument is: influence is undeniable, and greatness is merely a measure of influence. To successfully accuse something of being ""overrated"" would mean to prove, through research, that it wasn't actually as influential as critics say it was, which is certainly possible, but not what people on the Internet mean when they say ""overrated."" + + + +" +"DeathlyAcorn: You don't know it would last, though. That's my only contention. I'm sure most people always start out with the best of intentions. Then life can get in the way. Often times life changes occur that neither of you were prepared for, communication breakdowns can happen, boredom and irritation can set in. If people knew things wouldn't last then I doubt they would ever have got married, but it's always good to have a positive outlook, I just disagree with the idea of you knowing. + +That said, it's a very personal subject and I don't really want to argue to much with it. I don't think age can be as black and white provided you're both on a similar wavelength. I know people who are all the same age on completely different levels of maturity. And I genuinely hope it all works out for you both. +changemymindage: I think any issues that arise with us could arise with any old couple 6 months apart in age. Our relationship isn't perfect, and a lot of the issues are the same stuff I've dealt with in relationships where my S/O was 2 years older (nothing compared to 20). + +I think I've really found the one for me, and I genuinely would rather die than live without him the way it stands. He adds colour, happiness, and joy into my life like nothing and no one else ever has. + +If life ever gets in the way, then so be it, but I will always look back positively on our time together." +"cloans: You're argument is basically one of semantics. I mean, I could say ""My religion caused me to do X"" or I could say ""I did X for a religious reason"". I'm saying literally exactly the same thing, but only the second doesn't work in your opinion? + +Maybe, a better way or saying it would be that you don't think religion or faith should be used as evidence for an assertion. That means something quite different than what your post entails, but it would probably be more accurate. +TheNextLiamNeeson: Those aren't literally the same thing and the first doesn't even make sense really. My argument is not of semantics, but about whether or not religious 'truths' are valid justifications for arguments. I suspect not, for many reasons. Partly because there are contradictory religions." +"Abstract_Atheist: It's hard to change your view if you don't explain why you hold it. + +1. What values do you think constitute ""bettering"" society? + +2. Why do you think liberal social policy will help to achieve those values? + +Your answer to 1 is important. For example, many Catholics would oppose gay marriage on the basis that homosexual sex is a violation of the natural law. The Catholic Church has consistently said that homosexual sex is disordered. The authors of the Bible, being mostly males who lived a long time ago, were probably opposed to homosexuality, as well. + +Maybe you say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but should be permitted by the government because people have rights. That seems to be in tension with your claim that we should have universal healthcare, though, because universal healthcare requires taking huge sums of money from some people to give to others, which arguably violates the rights of the people who earned the money. So you need to explain what you think rights are if you take that route. +zelda2013: Let's tackle it one at a time: + +Gay Marriage: I feel that it is intrinsically disordered with respect to Natural Law (insofar as it relates to reproductive ability); however, I believe that they should be able to marry and at least adopt children. I feel that denying an individual the right to marry the person he/she loves constitutes discrimination, regardless of reproductive potential." +"excultist: In a mystical concept of reality, both God and humans are magical beings. Human decisions are not deterministic, we can choose *anything* as a result of our free will. You may believe that our past history and training, our biology, our inherited response patterns, evolutionary pressure, social pressure, and any other relevant factors will force us to make a specific decision. But we transcend all of that because we are magical beings. Of course, you may not believe that, however, it does fit into the hypothetical situation which you have described. + +The authors of the bible were telling us a parable to explain why the world is such a mess. Why is childbirth so painful, does this indicate the perversity or sadism of the Creator? How can we convince women to be always obedient to their husbands? These, and other urgent questions are conveniently answered by the parable of the Garden of Eden and the Original Sin which happened there. We cannot blame God for these things because God is much more powerful than we are, and He will punish us if we do not worship and obey him. Get it? +FeloniousMonk94: But free will is incompatible with omniscience- if God does not know in advance what actions we will take, then it isn't omniscient. Omniscience and free will cannot coexist because contradictions immediately arise. + +" +"ThePantsParty: Are you limiting this to only legal sanctions, or to ethical considerations in general? Because legally of course you're either found guilty or not guilty, but even there, there's gray in the sense that things like motivation is taken into account. For example, look at the varying degrees of murder, as well as manslaughter, all based on what was motivating the person. So that would seem to be an example of shades of gray as to how bad something is. +PrincessMarian: sorry I wasn't very clear. Yes, I meant ethical considerations in general." +"Nepene: http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page.aspx?id=9974 + +Singapore doesn't have a flat tax, they have an income tax from 0-20% + +That being said, they do have a lower tax rate. One of the consequences of this is that poor people pay a lot more for medical care. You have to pay 20% of your income in social security + +http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/asia/singapore.html + +I've seen recommendations that you spend another 20% of your income on insurance. + +So you will be paying a lot in other fees. + +Maybe it will be less, but then you have to consider the poor- should they be dying of preventible diseases because the government doesn't take in as much tax? +Diesel1425: Singapore' tax is not technically flat, but effectively because of forced CPF with phase out, the system benefits high income earners much more. I believe there is a relatively good public health system, but if you want better care, you can spend more. That seems fair to me. " +"Madplato: Your Jay-Walking analogy could be correct, but you are using it wrong. + +We can't give these people their years back, but we can certainly stop punishing them for something that is no longer illegal. There's a reason the law changed; most likely because it wasn't a reasonable law to start with. Law is hardly a fast evolving corpus, if it changed *now*, it means it hasn't been actual for some time. + +Other than that, it's expensive to keep people in prison for the hell of it. +muhandes: How is not releasing someone from jail fundamentally any different ( albeit more severe) than not returning money to somebody? In both cases someone lost something (lifetime, money) and releasing them/ returning the money would only partially give them back what was taken from them (lifetime lost, potential earnings lost) + +I agree with you that jail is expensive, but we as a society decided that the cost of jail ( both financially and morally) is worth it in the long run." +"A_Soporific: Propaganda is advertising, just advertising for questions of power and public policy. Even when all media was controlled by individual governments and the only thing you got from news was buzzwords it didn't actually achieve lasting results or override someone's personal beliefs. In fact, a lack of propaganda can be a problem because it makes it hard or even impossible to get millions of people to agree on what policy is a good idea. After all, all public policy helps some people and hurts others, the ability to judge whether it helps more than it hurts often comes down to definitions and assumptions that are not universal. Propaganda can be used to ""normalize"" these things to something that is unique to each person to something that groups buy into common ones that are reasonably close to what they would default to absent outside influence. + +Cold calling may be annoying and largely ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal just because politicians use buzz words or are trying to gather support for points of view that you oppose. That's the secret of propaganda, when we agree with the basic tenants we don't see it as intrusive, we see it as someone speaking the truth in simple, clear terms. +holeinaone: I think the goal should be to find universal truths and generally try to avoid persuading the masses until those are found. It may be effective but I think fundamental principles should be the foundation of governments. + +" +"gbdallin: You're missing a part. Morality wasn't created by either of those premises. + +My argument is that morality is based on empathy, which is not a humans-only process. If you look at it that way, morality is simply the attempt to treat people the way you think they want to be treated. You could be wrong, guessing what they want. But, it's the intent at that point. +daftmunk: There are different types of morality, though. There are sociopaths who have their own morals that have nothing to do with empathy. Even empathetic people have morals that aren't based on empathy. For example, many people think that flag-burning is wrong even though flags don't have feelings. Others believe that it's wrong to challenge authority, and some people will call something morally wrong just because it grosses them out. + +What I was trying to argue was that these moral beliefs are ultimately based on feelings that lead to premises that may or may not lead to arguments." +"Account9726: I don't see anything wrong with a half eaten bag of undesirable candy. Is it not better that it is simply not consumed (or saved for someone who likes it or does not care) rather than people taking in the calories from something they don't particularly like just to be polite or finish the bag? If everyone does this the distribution would still be equal (subject to speed of consumption, just like if it was random), as everyone is taking just choice and only those that don't care are taking randomly (which would also mean they are less likely to take the favored bits, wasting them on someone who doesn't have a preference). Sure, someone may be disappointing looking into it at the end and not finding what they want, but no more disappointed than grabbing a random handful and getting nothing they like (but without forcing themselves to eat a pile of sugar just to get another shot at what they wanted). +Mcreefer: I would argue that most people have marginal differences between the majority of pieces in the bag. Take the average bag of haribo for example. Here the coca cola bottles and cherries tend to be the favorites, while the other gelatine shapes are most certainly edible yet not preferred. " +"LuigiWasRight: Is poetry useful in a purely utilitarian sense? No, probably not. + +But at the same time, is that sci-fi book you read useful? Is that song you are listening to useful? Is that painting you saw useful? No, not really. But that's not really the point of them. + +The fact that they aren't ""useful"" is disparaging for a lot of people, and as such they simply lose interest in the arts. You are definitely not alone in this thought. + +To me, poetry exists simply as a different (often more interesting) way to tell a story. It's essentially the same with paintings, songs, films, operas, dance... whatever you can think of. They all (usually) exist to tell a story. Sure, you could just tell a story, but that's boring. Even in a novel, you will rarely read a line such as ""Sarah was 20. She has blue eyes and blonde hair."" Instead you will read something along the lines of, ""Sarah's beauty had become more obvious to Mark now that she was no longer a teenager. Her flowing blonde hair and deep blue eyes made his heart flutter each time he caught a glimpse of them."" Authors write like this simply because it is more interesting. Poetry was born as another way to tell a simple story in an interesting way. + +To me, I would assume that poetry became popular originally because it was easy to mass produce. You couldn't mass produce a painting, films didn't exist yet, dance has to be done in person (as do operas). With poetry, all you needed was a printing press and a load of paper and pretty soon everybody could see your work. + +I hope some of that helped! +rasuicr: Yes, that helps! + +You and CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH bring very interesting points, actually. Something that I had not given much thought. + +You explained in simple words something that I was trying to understand: ""Authors write like this simply because it is more interesting."" + +I had similar thought on visual arts a while back, why was it so important? Why society made us care so much? Why do we had museums for paintings when there are artists today that are way better? +But the sheer power that visual arts express made it easier for me to understand that is just something to be appreciated and it doesn't really need a why. It also helps immenselly that you can see the artist evolving over time, applying different techniques, signatures styles and so on. + +Thanks!" +"bentzi: all of this sounds really expensive. The Us government can barely afford what it's spending now, with roughly 13k/a student, trillions in health care, billions in NASA budgets. How are you planning to fund all these programs? Also, why would you expect a different outcome to this massive spending? + +I challange you view that there is no such a thing as a waste of money. What if despite all your spending on education, the schools are still crummy and the teachers still horrible? how about if all the money spent on science doesn't produce the breakthroughs you are expecting, will there be any accountability on how the money spend? + +How is the technocrat chosen, and is there any mechanism to get rid of him, if he does a crappy job? or gives all the science funding to his friends? + +Bince82: It would be funded by a redeployment of budget away from military. There's a lot of pie charts out there but I'll just use the one below. Basically military is 20% while education and science are 2% each. Good point on the education still sucking, but with higher teacher standards and bigger budget, I think it would improve. Science spending accountability could be problem, but I'd say look at everything we've accomplished with minimal spending, and that addition spending would accelerate that progress. True though that mismanagement of that money would be a disaster, but from what I understand military spending is terribly mismanaged now and my argument is that it would be better applied to science. In any form of spending there will be diminishing returns, my argument is more that it should be applied in better places. + + http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cnnyourmoney.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ybl_federal_budget_breakdown.png&imgrefurl=http://yourmoney.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/&h=1080&w=1920&sz=634&tbnid=bLklCkOQoAWrJM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__fgNHdAorolRRzQ9gZ36AlCKBJ_g=&docid=OQB4vmOIn8u8_M&sa=X&ei=SNZKUrTQH6jk4APf1YC4BQ&ved=0CEwQ9QEwAg +" +"Gorptastic: Grades aren't supposed to translate into real-world experience! That's why you should pursue internships, join clubs, participate in social activities, be a leader and blaze your own trail. High grades are valuable in telling employers that you could be a focused, diligent, quick-learning, and capable worker. A 4.0 student might learn quickly or retain information well, and that is important. But what matters is what that student does with that information to be a decision maker. +mumrahsDjang: I respect your argument but I feel like employers ask this question when it isn't really necessary. I was recently in a job interview for a ticket sales position in sports and was asked for my college GPA. Now if it was some sort of IT job or a job that dealt with high level computations, then I would sort of agree with you but with some jobs, why the hell do they ask for my GPA?" +"Gralthator: It seems like most of your points don't really apply specifically to modern society, things like being born or having to exist in a society until you are old enough to be able to function on your own would be true of any human child from any society, from a single baby and its mother to a full modern republic. + +> A child lacks all capabilities of re-establishing themselves (which means whatever resources they use from the system should not be held against them as a debt) + +I'm not sure which Modern Western societies hold children in debt for the cost of raising them, but I'm not familiar with it. + +>Upon reaching maturity, there exists no legitimate (or legal) scenarios in which someone is allowed to live with self-sufficiently without assimilating. (They must become part of the system to amass enough resources to reestablish themselves) + +Anyone can run off into the wilderness at any time and live a prehistoric existence. There are huge stretches of wild land still on the planet, and you can just go and live in most of them as best as you can, just as our ancestors did many thousands of years ago. There may be places you cannot live as you see fit, but that is always true. Either environment or other creatures will limit where you can live to a degree, but there are still plenty of places to go completely off the grid. + +> Since someone has not explicitly consented to be part of this system, and no way exists to opt out of the system, it exists without consent. + +Why do you say no way exists to opt out of the system? I am free to leave the country and to go wherever I can, by whatever means I have. The fact that I can't obtain money without being a part of the system so I can buy a plane ticket is irrelevant, as I can still walk/swim just as far as any human ever could (generally speaking). + +> We are all at least temporarily and to a limited degree then slaves. + +This seems like an overstatement at the very least. If you have the freedom to walk into the woods and disappear, and no one will hunt you down and force you to come back, or even try to stop you leaving in the first place, then I don't see how you can be considered a slave. Slaves lack freedom, it's the defining characteristic of being a slave. Without anyone forcing you to live a certain way, without anyone preventing you from changing your society or the way you exist, calling yourself a slave seems like an exaggeration. + +ihatepoople: >I'm not sure which Modern Western societies hold children in debt for the cost of raising them, but I'm not familiar with it. + +It's merely a point made to dispute a counterpoint that ""well you were raised in the system, you must repay your debts."" + +>Anyone can run off into the wilderness at any time and live a prehistoric existence. There are huge stretches of wild land still on the planet, and you can just go and live in most of them as best as you can, just as our ancestors did many thousands of years ago. There may be places you cannot live as you see fit, but that is always true. Either environment or other creatures will limit where you can live to a degree, but there are still plenty of places to go completely off the grid. + +You can't do so legally or legitimately without assimilating. + +>Why do you say no way exists to opt out of the system? I am free to leave the country and to go wherever I can, by whatever means I have. The fact that I can't obtain money without being a part of the system so I can buy a plane ticket is irrelevant, as I can still walk/swim just as far as any human ever could (generally speaking). + +Yeah but before the establishment of modern society there were no restrictions to do such a thing. You simply left your town, commune, city, village or whatever organization you were and resettled. Such a thing is not legally possible anymore without assimilating. + +>This seems like an overstatement at the very least. If you have the freedom to walk into the woods and disappear, and no one will hunt you down and force you to come back, or even try to stop you leaving in the first place, then I don't see how you can be considered a slave. + +Because once your masters are alerted to you living on the land and not assimilating into the system you will be removed by force and then put into a situation to choose assimilation or imprisonment. + +>Slaves lack freedom, it's the defining characteristic of being a slave. Without anyone forcing you to live a certain way, without anyone preventing you from changing your society or the way you exist, calling yourself a slave seems like an exaggeration. + +You are forced to assimilate. You do not have the option to reject the system without being imprisoned. " +"dale_glass: > My first argument for dualism is that we have qualia. Qualia are subjective, private, first person experiences; they are ""what it is like"" to be in a certain state. If I look at a white wall in my room, there are photons registering in my eyes and chemical events going on in my brain, but there is also something it is like to be looking at the white wall, a white quale. + +I don't have the time right now to go into details, so I'll be short for the time being. + +The problem I see with the qualia argument is that it makes several unfounded assumptions: + +1. Materialism implies that the brain must have complete control and access to its own state. This is clearly not true of the brain (you can't tell me your own heartbeat), nor true of machines we build due to principles of encapsulation and abstraction +2. The assumption that qualia are related to the external world, and not to intermediate processes in the brain. +3. The assumption that something about qualia is magical and not materially reproducible, when we write every day software that has the same characteristics. + +> Chalmers brings this point out by means of his zombie thought experiment in his book The Conscious Mind. We can conceive of a world exactly like ours in every physical respect, but in which no one has any conscious experience (i.e., any qualia). Since we can conceive of a zombie world, it must be possible, and if it is possible, then qualia are not identical to physical processes. + +Actually, I can't conceive of a zombie world. To me both you and a zombie look exactly the same, I can't reach into your head and determine whether you perceive qualia or not. Therefore it's not an useful classifier, and whether you have that characteristic or not is not important. + + +Abstract_Atheist: > I don't have the time right now to go into details, so I'll be short for the time being. + +No problem. + +> Materialism implies that the brain must have complete control and access to its own state. This is clearly not true of the brain (you can't tell me your own heartbeat), nor true of machines we build due to principles of encapsulation and abstraction + +I'm not arguing for materialism, so I don't see how this is a problem for me. + +> The assumption that qualia are related to the external world, and not to intermediate processes in the brain. + +The argument doesn't assume this. + +> The assumption that something about qualia is magical and not materially reproducible, when we write every day software that has the same characteristics. + +We write software every day that has its own subjective experience? Can you provide an example? + +In any event, even if we could create a machine that had qualia, that would not show that qualia are identical to physical processes (Chalmers actually thinks it's likely that we could one day create a conscious machine). It would just show that we could create the conditions for qualia to arise. + +> Actually, I can't conceive of a zombie world. To me both you and a zombie look exactly the same, I can't reach into your head and determine whether you perceive qualia or not. Therefore it's not an useful classifier, and whether you have that characteristic or not is not important. + +You wouldn't be able to tell by looking whether or not I was a zombie, but you can conceive of a world where I was a zombie by imagining what it would be like from my perspective." +"faschwaa: The Supreme Court's decision wasn't so simple as ""people can opt out of laws due to their religion because we say so."" There was a conflict between the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they decided how it should be resolved. You're speaking in generalities, which doesn't really fit into legal framework. + +Edited to add: Also, the reason religion is given special consideration is that religious freedom was literally written into the constitution. Personal desire to get high was not. + +Edited to clarify: I feel like people are assuming that I support the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. I do not. At all. I think it was a terrible decision. I just wanted to clarify their reasoning because it seemed like OP was directly responding to it, which it turns out he was not. +durutticolumn: I realize the HL decision only applies to the specific question of birth control and doesn't suddenly mean religious people can opt out of any law they want (though it does open the door to that possibility). But it does grant them the right to opt out of this particular law, and there are other laws that religious people already had the option to opt out of. + +Why do you say generalities have no place in law? Freedom of speech is pretty general." +"SasakitheMinor: There are a few weaknesses in this reasoning. + +Under Mackie updates, there phrase ""there is a strong reason to think x"" is used. This, in essence, boils down to saying ""because it probably didn't happen, we should assume it didn't."" However, the effective odds of something happening aren't necessarily what we use to determine trutyh. For instance, technically speaking, the odds of evolution resulting in intelligent life is extremely low. However, the theory of evolution is still the scientific norm. + +The other issue is the claim that miracles are never testified to by sufficiently many people with spotless reputations, excellent educations, and a lot to lose in the event that they are caught lying. While historically this has been true, it cannot be said that it will never happen. In the theoretical event that a miracle is observed by sufficient, credible witnesses, the argument falls apart. +Abstract_Atheist: > However, the effective odds of something happening aren't necessarily what we use to determine trutyh. For instance, technically speaking, the odds of evolution resulting in intelligent life is extremely low. However, the theory of evolution is still the scientific norm. + +Inductive inference is not used in cases where we have really good, consistent perceptual evidence for a claim, because seeing that something is true is a better reason to believe it than inferring that it is true. However, we do not have really good, consistent perceptual evidence for the existence of miracles, so we have to rely on inductive inference, which yields the conclusion that miracles are unlikely. + +> The other issue is the claim that miracles are never testified to by sufficiently many people with spotless reputations, excellent educations, and a lot to lose in the event that they are caught lying. While historically this has been true, it cannot be said that it will never happen. In the theoretical event that a miracle is observed by sufficient, credible witnesses, the argument falls apart. + +This is a pretty good point, although I doubt that we will ever see that many witnesses with the required degree of credibility come forward to attest to a miracle." +"Amablue: > 1) Too much configuration. If the editor is only good once I have tweaked it immeasurably, then I think that it is objectively worse than one that is good out of the box. + +This is true, but only because Vim can be used in such a wide variety of ways. Getting everyone to agree on the 'one true configuration' is a pointless exercise. However, getting a decent set up is fairly easy if you just google around and look at some publicly posted vimrc's. + +You can always add and change things to make it more comfortable for your own use, but if you're against doing that then you're not going to have a good experience. I would go as far as to suggest you add a bind like + + map <silent> <leader>v :tabe! $MYVIMRC<CR> + +which will make it very easy to edit your vimrc file just by hitting \v at pretty much any time. + +> 2) Shortcuts are inconsistent with OS shortcuts. On Macs and Windows, there is a system wide shortcut for moving the cursor left or right by one word, but Vim makes its own shortcut for doing that. Similar for deleting words, selecting words or paragraphs, and etc. I know that there are historical reasons that Vim does it that way, but I don't think that is a good excuse. + +The reasons vim uses alternate keybinds is not only historical, it's also because *its fast*. Navigating and making edits in vim has the potential of being much much faster than in a regular editor. There is never any need to move your hands off the keyboard to click anything, most of the most common operations take just one or two keys. + +> 3) It is rarely more efficient. [...] + +If I make a tyop during typing this paragraph, all I need to do is hit the following keys. + + <esc>?tyo<enter>cwtypo<esc>A + +And then my typo is fixed and I'm editing where I last left off. I would bet money I can type that faster than you can move there manually either with the arrow keys or with the mouse. + +> Yes I know that you can navigate with the arrow keys but most people seem to think that is a bad idea for some reason, or somehow makes you less efficient, even though it saves keystrokes. + +The motivation for not using the arrow keys is that it takes your hand away from the home row. Everything you need to do can be accomplished without ever needing to move your hand that far. Taking your hand off the home row is slower because you have move your hands over there, and because it's less precise. + +> Another example is saving a document, which takes 3-5 keystrokes in vim depending on if you are currently in insert mode or not (esc->:->w->enter->i) vs 2 in other editors (ctrl+s) and those 2 can basically be hit in parallel so its even better. + +If you miss that particular keybind, you can just add something like this to your vimrc + + nnoremap <C-s> :w<cr> + +Like I said before, if you want to get the most out of vim you have to be comfortable changing it's settings to suit your style. + + +> 4) Using the keyboard instead of the mouse is not necessarily faster. Obviously the keyboard is great for many things, but for moving the cursor to an arbitrary position on the screen, a mouse is better. + +Can you give an example? If you can see the place you want to move on the screen, you can type either the line number or the relative line distance between where you are and your target to get there much faster than you can move your hand to the mouse. Or you can jump straight there using `/` or `?` to search for the words around the text you want to jump to. Or you can use the `f` or `t` commands to jump to a given character. Or you can jump to a location you've bookmarked. Or you can use `{`, `}`, `[[` or `]]` to navigate by paragraphs. Or a number of other options. + +> People talk about the overhead of moving your hand to the mouse, but its really not that far, and its more automatic than pressing a key sequence that depends heavily on the where you want to put the cursor relative to where it is now. + +A skilled Vim user will have these movements in muscle memory. If you've only been at it two weeks, you haven't had time to build up the muscle memory to really make movement fast and intuitive. + +Are you just learning it on your own or are there people you know or work with that can give you tips and tricks? Have you watched any vimcasts [like this series](http://vimcasts.org/) about how to do things efficiently? Vim is not a general purpose text editor for the average joe, it's a specialized tool that is not intended to be dumbed down for beginners, it takes effort to make full use of it. + +If you haven't already, I urge you to read over [this post](http://stackoverflow.com/a/1220118/63791) + +> 5) The interface is undiscoverable. + +This is true, but like I was just saying, vim is not a tool designed for user-friendliness, it's designed for raw efficiency. There is however extremely comprehensive help files, so if you want to know something you can usually type `:h <topic>` and get some useful information. + +Edit: I forgot to mention, if you're using stock gVim, it does come with menus by default, if you want to use them to get used to the keybinds. I usually turn them off first thing though since I know the important stuff and they just clutter my screen. + +> Compare to vim, where if you think vim can do something but don't know how, you have to read the manual, or search google, both of which take longer than looking through a few menus. + +I will agree that Vim can have a larger up front cost in terms of learning how to use it, but once you learn the important parts it all starts to get much better. + +> 6) Other minor nitpicks that are mostly about personal preference. I don't like the undo model, I think its too complex and the added complexity doesn't justify the added power. + +What don't you like about it? u undoes stuff, `<C-r>` is redo - the keys are different but it's just like every other editor in that regard. I would argue it's better in some ways though, as it doesn't guess where to put the undo checkpoints. The places where undo reverts to are perfectly deterministic, which is extremely important in Vim. + +> And I don't like how almost everything you do changes the clipboard/buffer, and when I paste, the text that appears is almost never what I expect. (I often copy something with the intent of pasting it in 20-30 seconds, then do a bunch of other edits before pasting) + +This is just a change you're going to have to get used to - if you want to save something you can easily put it in a named buffer, or take advantage of the number buffers, or quickly open a scratch buffer with something like `:vnew` and store it there, or something like that. If you want, you can make some bindings that make storing in a named buffer even faster, or that redirect certain types of deletions to the blackhole buffer so they don't mess with what you expect to be on the clipboard. +Dooey: Much of your argument hinges on the fact that vim can be good if customized, and my main argument is that an editor that is only good if customized is a bad editor. Another of your arguments is that vim is designed to be very general purpose. I can see how a specific purpose tool will be better than a general purpose one for that purpose, and the things I uses I have for a text editor for are fairly narrow (editing code exclusively, no html/css/config files/stuff like that) however, the specific purpose tools I've used for editing code have _almost_ all the features of vim, and a ton of other features specific to that purpose. + +> If you miss [ctrl+s to save], you can just add something like this to your vimrc + +If, all else equal, by customization I can achieve parity with another editor, the other editor is better. + +> The motivation for not using the arrow keys is that it takes your hand away from the home row. + +On my keyboard, every laptop keyboard I've ever used, and a majority of desktop keyboards I've used, this is not true. I can very easily reach the arrow keys and the H key without any crazy hand contortions. + +> Or you can jump straight there using / or ? to search for the words around the text you want to jump to. Or you can use the f or t commands to jump to a given character. Or you can jump to a location you've bookmarked. Or you can use {, }, [[ or ]] to navigate by paragraphs. Or a number of other options. + +[this](http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html) research indicates that people consistently overestimate the time it takes to use the mouse. As I said, it *feels* slower, but in many cases, it feels slower than it actually is, to the point where the gains from switching away from the mouse are minuscule, and sometimes the mouse is actually faster. The problem is that moving a mouse is _too_ easy, and your brain is bored while moving it. Using a shortcut is easy enough that it feels like muscle memory, but difficult enough that your brain is occupied, and this causes it to feel shorter, even when it takes longer. + +> This is true, but like I was just saying, vim is not a tool designed for user-friendliness, it's designed for raw efficiency. + +These are not mutually exclusive. A good editor will be both. + +> What don't you like about [the undo system]? + +The fact that it uses a tree instead of a linear system. With most editors, you use <C-z> to undo, and <C-Z> to redo. Only 2 commands, so its way easier to remember, and even better: follows the pattern of all shortcuts in good editors: if ctrl+key does something, then ctrl+shift+key does the ""opposite"" of that thing. (Opposite here is kind of vague but always makes sense in the context of each command) + +> if you want to save something you can easily put it in a named buffer, or take advantage of the number buffers, or quickly open a scratch buffer with something like :vnew and store it there, or something like that. + +Again, too much complexity for not enough benefit. 99% of the time I just want to copy and paste. The 1% of the time that I want to do something more complex with buffers, I can just open a new file and paste there temporarily, which, by the way, requires less keystrokes on Sublime Text than what your suggestion is: ctrl+n,v to open a new, unnamed file and paste there. 3 keystrokes. What is it for vim?" +"dodinator: I'm against independence for more 'wooly' reasons than you give, especially as economics isn't my strong point. I'd also like to point out that if 'giving some of the fruits of your labour to Britain' is the biggest issue then there would be a case for London/South East England independence. + +I think my argument really comes from the fact I think we should be striving for more integration, not less. For example, I think there is already a slight problem with English racism in Scotland which this isn't going to make any better. You also seem to think that the new Scottish government will be automatically better than the British one, there is no guarantee your politicians won't end up being dicks... + +Then again, I'm English so I my opinion counts for little. +isalright: The main problem with integration, I feel, is that it isn't going to magically give us more say in elections. The Scottish opinion might be squashed by the British opinion, like when Margaret Thatcher imposed a Poll Tax on Scotland despite it's objections. + + +I'm also basing my opinion of the Scottish government on the current one. There are some undesirables but Alex Sammond is alright." +"AlbertDock: They aren't produced to deliberately distort peoples view of the world. They are produced to make money, that's why when the film is released the shops are full of the merchandise. +Most films and book produced for children have simple ideas about good and evil. Because children need simple examples. As for reality all fairy stories have magic, it's what children like, and it's what makes money. +desmonduz: Yes, they produce money because there is a demand for that. Why do you think there is a demand for such a stupid crap? Because those who buy it watched the same stuff during their childhood. We like what we did while we were kids, we regard all those memories with our kindest feelings, and want our kids to feel the same. Therefore we buy those crappy movies to them. The very cause of us buying it is a policy of stupidifying the whole nation, so it is easier to control it. I am not conspiracy theorist, but sometimes when I see such an obvious brainwashing propaganda which is directed to distort reality in our perception, I recognise the elements of lunatic religion. It kills common-sense and rational thinking." +"ryan_m: Use Occam's Razor here. + +How much money would they have made with all of these put options? A hundred million? There are easier ways to make money with WAY less risk than this. Stock market activity is tracked like crazy, and the people who would have perpetrated it would know that as well. If they had the ability to pull something like 9/11 off to make money, they would also have the ability to make money without something that would expose them. + +A lot of your sources basically claim that it was all a controlled demolition. Think about what that would mean. + +* Who did the work? +* How were they able to wire 2 buildings with 110 floors each without anyone noticing? No fresh drywall or paint noticed. No security tapes. Nothing. +* What was the plan if something went wrong, as happens from time to time in demolitions? What if the plane just clipped the building? +* How many people would have been involved at each level? How much money would it take to keep EVERY SINGLE ONE of them quiet? Basically anyone involved would have enough proof to blow it wide open for, what would basically be the single biggest news story of all human history. Why hasn't that happened? +EmergencyTaco: The risk associated with all of the conspiracy theories is the one thing preventing me from ever going full-blown conspiracy theorist. I'm operating under the ""what if"" assumption. I'm really trying hard not to fall into the trap that a lot of conspiracy theorists find themselves in, and that is the trap of ""yeah, okay, but..."" What I mean by that is I don't ever want to come off as just discounting all pieces of evidence refuting my position while simultaneously just throwing up another theory. + +That being said, I feel your response is based solely on the idea of ""it can't be true because no one has come forward yet."" In terms of the stock market manipulation, I agree. It would have been incredibly risky and an obvious way of tracking down people involved. However, it still happened. I am absolutely not discounting the possibility of pure coincidence, but you have to admit it is a BIG coincidence. Perhaps the fact that it is just so obvious is enough to pull it off. Hide in plain sight and all that jazz. (Yeah I know that sounds like I'm grasping for straws, I'm just spitballing here.) I'd just like to know what else could potentially cause this. + +Before I address the rest of your bullet points I want to say this: I don't think any of us have any idea exactly how powerful/far reaching the government is. I agree, it would be RIDICULOUSLY difficult to keep all of this under wraps, but that's not to say it's beyond the US Government's capabilities. Look at the NSA for example. It has been around since 1917, and has been conducting mass surveillance on US citizens since 1981. I'm willing to bet that the Snowden-esque surveillance has been going on for quite a while, but it took over 30 years for this information to be leaked and there are THOUSANDS of NSA employees. 9/11 only happened 14 years ago, and thousands of people would not have been needed to make this work. Again, just spitballing. + +>Who did the work? + +I don't know, and I'm not going to pretend to. Who is digging through people's personal files unconstitutionally or carrying out torture at Guantanamo? (Granted those aren't as significant as a large-scale attack on your own people.) There are hundreds of millions of people in this country, and while I'd like to believe there is a vast majority that would be appalled at the idea of propagating something like 9/11, I'm also sure there's a number of people willing to look the other way for the right price. + +> How were they able to wire 2 buildings with 110 floors each without anyone noticing? No fresh drywall or paint noticed. No security tapes. Nothing. + +I don't believe the Twin Towers were a controlled demolition. I believe two planes were hijacked and flown into the towers and the heat from the jet fuel fires weakened the steel supports enough so that they buckled, and then gravity did the rest. I am absolutely not a JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS conspiracy theorist. (And fun fact, burning magnesium IS hot enough to melt steel, and magnesium is a very common component in airplane wings.) I believe that WTC-7 may have been a controlled demolition. It came down seven hours after the Twin Towers and it started it's collapse from the bottom rather than the top. Seven hours amid complete chaos is enough time for an experienced team to plant charges and detonate them. + +>What was the plan if something went wrong, as happens from time to time in demolitions? What if the plane just clipped the building? + +Again, I don't believe the Twin Towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition. I believe they fell because two planes flew into them. (I think it's a possibility that Al-Qaeda could have been contacted and instructed on where we were weak and how they could exploit those weaknesses, but I definitely believe that the hijackings happened as stated. That doesn't mean the government wasn't involved in my opinion. Also, if it happened in this way it would be MUCH easier to cover up, you would really only need one person making a call from a payphone.) + +> How many people would have been involved at each level? How much money would it take to keep EVERY SINGLE ONE of them quiet? Basically anyone involved would have enough proof to blow it wide open for, what would basically be the single biggest news story of all human history. Why hasn't that happened? + +Honestly, I don't think it would have to be that many. 50, maybe 100 at the very most. It could even be as low as 20. If it was a matter of the government instructing Al Qaeda on how to hijack a plane and where to fly that plane it may have only involved 2-3 people. (That's assuming there were no controlled demolitions.) A full scale attack like some of the conspiracy theorists out there like to imagine would have involved hundreds of people and probably would have been almost impossible to keep a secret. But a couple of phone calls and a small 10 man team of demolitions experts could potentially accomplish what I'm arguing. Why has no one come forwards? It could be fear that the government might kill them, it could be the fact that they're getting paid marvelously so they have more to lose by coming forwards or it could be a combination of the two. Not everyone is as righteous as Edward Snowden. A lot of people just look out for themselves. If each man on the supposed demolition crew is getting $10 million a year for him to keep his mouth shut then I can see them not coming forwards. + +Thanks a ton for your response!" +"vethlock: I don't see anything wrong with something that is detrimental being socially accepted. Mcdonalds is bad for you, candy is bad for you, playing video games all day is bad for you, breathing the air in china is bad for you. I don't think I can really change your view because you are basically just mad at ignorant people which most of us redditors would agree with. From my personal experience I don't think heavy alcohol use is socially accepted by most groups regardless of their views on pot. Pretty much only college kids and alcoholics think that drinking a lot is a ""good"" thing, and I'd bet that most people in those 2 groups aren't strongly opposed to accepting other people's marijuana use. + +If we could only have alcohol or MJ be legal I would choose MJ, but most people who are opposed to legalization are simply ignorant of the facts of marijuana and I don't think that its completely their fault. +TumblrWithTonic: McDonalds, candy, video games, and chinese air won't kill you in a single sitting. I appreciate your fellow hate of ignorant people. Not enough know the facts that contradict their parental brainwash." +"scottevil110: Any programmer is going to use what works for them, so for you, yeah, it's not worth *your* time to learn the shortcuts in vim, because you already have a perfectly good way that works for you. + +However, I could say the exact same thing about *not* using vim, because it *is* what I learned on, and works equally well. I already do know all of those shortcuts, so what benefit would I find in ceasing to use vim? + +And yes, vim does have the added bonus of already being installed in nearly every platform and is easily accessible straight from the command line without having to open up an Xwin or something. + +Just as every programmer is going to find the language that they're most comfortable with, even if it isn't the latest and greatest, the same holds for the editor itself. Why is it worth my time to start using Notepad++ when I can already do anything I want in vim with just a couple of keystrokes? +BOVINE_FETCHER: Well of course, if you've already got your workflow going, why would you change it. But aren't you basically agreeing that learning it right now would not be worth the hassle?" +"AresSab3r: Asking for a paternity test is declaring that you don't have total trust that your partner is being faithful. It's understandable that some would see it as an accusation. If a relationship was already under stress I think that asking for a paternity test could potentially make a woman want to end the relationship. Does this make them a cheater or potential cheater? No. +Shockblocked: total trust <> total truth. + +How many relationships are affected by infidelity? a lot of them. from an objective view point what are the chances of you cheating in a relationship? an estimated 30-60%. and very few cheaters confess. + +If i were to drive knowing i had a 30-60% of having a wreck, you wouldnt ever go without insurance. paternity testing is that insurance. + +and in my opinion, if you truly cared for your SO you would want them to be protected too." +"Raintee97: you can't use the leaked pictures to hack into my bank account, or find out where I live, or find out where I go to school. + + +So if I found a few pictures of you and leaked them. And then stated that I would leak more pictures unless you did X,Y and Z, I'm sure I could extort you out of that information. +cmvnude: No, + +If someone tried to extort money or tried to get me to do a favor from them, that would be wrong. + +However, solely viewing the photos is not wrong." +"anonymous123421: Quality craft beer is usually expensive and also tastes very different from the watered down stuff you get at the ball game. There are high-end bars that have excellent beer on tap, including a ton in DC. I know many people that love beer, hoppy or not. I would imagine that many of those people have more money than you do (just by statistics), so to call it a ""poor man's drink"" is arrogant and false. Sure, some of them have specific tastes for specific beers, but most of the people I know are occasionally in the mood for a budweiser or corona. + +Your argument comes entirely from anecdotal evidence. +ParadoxDC: Well obviously declaring something as ""classless"" is subjective and therefore based on anecdotal evidence. Never said it wasn't. The amount of money I do or do not have is 10000% unrelated to whether or not I can call it a poor man's drink. I could be poor and call it that. Spoiler: I'm quite the opposite. But again, it's unrelated and you have no reason to bring it up. I would imagine that your friends who are ""occasionally in the mood for a bud or corona"" are in the mood for it because either a) that's what they have at home already or b) because they don't want to spend a lot of money. It's probably not because they crave that beer taste. Again, these are assumptions. I'll see if we get someone in here who actually claims to like the taste of beer." +"MD_NP12: I actually have to go somewhere in a moment, but I just wanted to comment really quickly. + + +What is considered a ""person"" at what stage of the pregnancy? There is no universal definition. Many Christians say conception is. Many Muslims say it is 120 days. Some don't even consider something ""alive"" until it is born. So, really, abortion is only murder based on the point of view you are looking at. + +I hope more people pick up on this topic. This is actually good for discussion. +Walrus13: That is a good point. I guess it comes this whole thing comes down to where I think human life begins. Can you change someone's mind on that?" +"ergonomicsalamander: I agree with you that no one should pressure other people into living their life a certain way, especially when it comes to decisions as big as whether or not to have children. + +If this is possible, I want to argue that not having children *is* selfish, but without making that statement a value judgement. What I mean is, the choice not to have children almost always revolves around a person's current life situation and/or what life situation they envision for themselves in the future. The decision is *about themselves* and therefore by definition selfish (self-ish). + +Of course, just because a decision is self-motivated doesn't automatically make it ""wrong"" or ""bad"". +Jashinist: But then, couldn't one argue the same for having children? Ask any parent why they had kids and the answer will usually be along the lines of ""oh, I always wanted them"". WANTED being the key word - it's them deciding to have children based on their own desires. + +So I guess if you do simplify ""selfishness"" to mean based on one's own desires, then both childfree and parents are equally guilty. Then I guess the point I'm making is that I don't agree with the stereotype that childfree people are necessarily more selfish than those who parent. " +"The_Mahatma_Fonzie: Religions aren't even theories because they're not falsifiable and have no evidence to back them up. + +The Big Bang theory and string theory do, at least, have evidence. You don't have to accept them 100%, hell, you don't have to believe them at all, but they are very different from religions. Scientists spend their time trying to to prove or falsify these theories, and if they're disproved, they try to come up with a theory that better explains the data. + +No such thing happens with religions. It's simply - here's an ancient book that is 100% correct, even though it was written by long-dead talking monkeys who had no scientific method. +Reasel: But on a fundamental level neither are falsifiable and neither are able to be proven as fact. I just looked up a theory and it seems that by definition religion is not a theory but follows all of the principles of what a theory consists of other than scientific testing." +"Fat_Crossing_Guard: >By choosing how we respond to bullying we are able to grow. + +That's a dangerous game to play. Whatever a child's response is to bullying, it isn't necessarily a conscious choice, but rather a result of how that kid was raised, or what kind of bullying they're encountering. In either case it's a traumatic event in someone's childhood that you're allowing to happen. Is bullying the only such trauma that can ""equip"" a child to handle the realities of adulthood? Surely I don't think you'd agree that a child should be beaten regularly to make sure they're ready for the life ahead of them. As a matter of fact, all that does is build resentment (or fear) and increase the likelihood of violence in the future. What makes bullying different? + +>I don't mean the fucked up kind of tormenting that leads kids to commit suicide, that's obviously not OK. + +What's the difference? It's not as easy to distinguish as you'd think, on the playground. There've been kids who committed suicide for some pretty ""mundane"" bullying in the past. I'd surmise it's the kind of bullying you'd allow to happen. As I alluded to already, different kids respond different ways to bullying, and it's not strictly because of the bullying. So clearly if you want to build a child's character for the real world, your target ought to be something else. + +Question: what do you think of corporal punishment, both at home and in school? +Prairie_Pete: I disagree with corporal punishment both at home and in school. Physical violence from a trusted authority figure has a much larger effect on the child than emotional trauma from a peer. + +If you're assumption that it is more about the kid than about the bullying is correct, should we not then be helping kids build the skills to deal with bullying, rather than trying to halt bullying altogether?" +"PepperoniFire: Consider that lowering the burden of proof makes it easier to convict actually innocent people, consequently depriving of them of, at least, liberty, and possibly also life. When we lower this threshold, the innocent can suffer just as easily. In one case, it's wrongly at the hands of the state. In the latter, it's *potentially* at the hands of an individual. The difference is that individuals are necessarily diffused power whereas the state has a concentrated arsenal of prosecutorial resources to launch at you once accused. + +When we say 'better to let 10 guilty men go free,' what we're basically saying is that it's a lot easier (and tempting) for the government to wrong more people on a daily basis because of the power it has and we want to focus on preventing that rather than creating general rules based on speculative possibilities of a single person harming other people. + +It's not as though lowering the burden of proof actually captures more criminals so much as it makes easier to label them as such whether it's true or not. You might say 'I'm not talking about presumption of guilt' but your thesis necessarily presumes it to be the case because you're working from a quote that presupposes those ten men are guilty. In the real world, we're supposed to have a rigorous inquiry into that, part of which is a high burden of proof. +618907: > individuals are necessarily diffused power + +What exactly does that mean? Why does it matter? Are the wrongs that individuals do to each other necessarily worse than the harm that a state can do to an individual? + +> creating general rules based on speculative possibilities of a single person harming other people + +But aren't taking criminals off the street and deterring future crime both fundamental goals of the justice system? If not, then they certainly should be. + +> so much as it makes easier to label them as such whether it's true or not + +A lower standard of evidence would mean less certainty, but I think that's forgivable when the issue is potentially one of life and death. A lower standard of evidence would lead to a greater percentage of criminals being convicted, even if we weren't *quite* as certain about which convictions were correct." +"cephalord: History is far more than just literal events. History is about different points of view, different cultures and paradigm shifts in populations and the people who trive or oppose them. It is not just important to learn history because that's how you got where you are today, it is also important because it is good to get a reminder that people in the world are different and your life is as alien to a peasant Chinese farmer as you are to someone living in your own region 200 years ago. + +Literature is similar. Keep in mind that stories are written by _people_. People who hold their own opinions, had their own life experiences and their cultural biases. For an easy example; take 1984, about a hyper-surveillance state. This was written somewhere in the 50s and is still somewhat relevant today. Relevant enough that terms like 'Big Brother' for a surveillance apparatus are commonly used. Eventually literary works can be so embedded in a culture that they become a big part of it and when that happens understanding the story will help understanding the culture. + +I agree about poems though. I hate them and they all sound like nonsense to me. +Ravenman2423: I should have gone on about the types of literature. I asked my teacher, what Makes ""the rochelet"" (the madam, lady, etc. pronounced ""rochelet"" In Hebrew) any more literature than, say, spiderman. 1984 works just as well as spiderman in this comparison. Spiderman and 1984 are just as fictional and just as full of lessons to be taught as ""the madam"". (the Rochelet is a story about a Jewish door to door salesman who lives in Europe selling knives. He stops by the door of a weird woman who's seduces him despite him being a silly Jew. He lives with her. She's very creepy. He gets more distant from his Judaism and then she tries to kill him with the knife he sold her. He realizes and gets closer to God and moves on From her. It's a holocaust metaphor. He is the Jews, she is Europe.) what makes this any more literature then 1984? I'd gladly learn 1984. It's actually one of the few books I've read completely on my own. But we are taught the same, stupid stories. They all seem to be somewhat related to the holocaust, in some weird ass town in fucking eastern Europe about a rabbi who moved to Israel or some shit like that. Zero flavour, zero anything that might remotely appeal to teenagers. It's bullshit. + +seriously, what is the requirement for ""literature""? is boring as fuck on the list? because 1984, spiderman, spongebob, they are all literature to me. they are fictional and have lessons to be learnt. thats all. is spiderman any less fiction than whatever they are teaching us because it happened in New York city in the year 1990 instead of some weird ass Hungarian town in the year 1864? this is really mostly a complaint to the sons of bitches who decide what we are to be taught. " +"1millionbucks: There's nothing wrong with bungee jumping or skydiving or skiing. These are all fun activities that carry risks. You can do things to increase your safety, like wear a helmet, but there will always be risks. Every person needs to decide for himself what risks they should and should not take. Your friend seems to have made an educated decision; I suppose that she will be fine. There are also other methods of birth control after sex anyway. However, statistically, condoms are the best method for most people and that's why they are recommended. +mizz_kittay: In other words ""correct, there's nothing wrong with the withdrawal method, but incorrect in thinking there could be anything wrong with any risky but educated decision in the first place""? " +"beetus_wrangler: How would this situation even occur? Would people even vote for someone who publicly stated that he or she didn't want to be president? And how is this any different from our current system? You're free to write in whatever candidate you'd like, including people who aren't actively running for office. (I'm assuming you're talking about the United States, BTW.) +lichorat: Oh it's different in that, they could state it, but they would be forced to be president. + +I'm talking about the U.S., I should have clarified it. +" +"convoces: Do the upsides outweigh the downsides in your view or *everyone's* view? Even if the upsides outweigh the downsides, does that make the downsides okay to the point that they can't be brought up or complained about? + +We should not excuse the behavior of crazy fans and stalkers just because celebrities are rich. + +We should keep in mind that acting/performing is just a job that happens to be paid pretty well for a small subset of people. If it could be demonstrated that the way that the public reacts to these people actually creates a hostile or harassing environment that could contribute to mental issues, then there would be a legitimate complaint. Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean that causing them mental anguish is okay and they should just shut up about it. + +Yes they may be rich and have benefits, but depriving them of other rights that everyone else has (the right to not be harassed or pushed into mental problems by the general population) isn't the best way to address this. + +Hopefully this helps change your view! +Unckmania: I like the way you think because you don't seem to disagree at all. " +"McKoijion: Macbooks have excellent branding (they are a status symbol,) they are relatively easy to use, they are low maintenance, they are relatively resistant to viruses, and they are very easy to buy. + +Many people are willing to spend the extra money for these features, even if they are getting slightly less computing power for the money. + +I don't know if they are in decline as a company, but they are (or were a few months ago) the [largest company in history](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443855804577601773524745182) by stock price and have the [most valuable brand](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/11/06/apple-dominates-list-of-the-worlds-most-valuable-brands/) in the world. +TumblrWithTonic: As a company, they are the most powerful. I'm saying the level that their computer market was at is in the decline. They just aren't that revolutionary anymore to the computer world." +"MPixels: I'm British. We've not got much land but we have got a lot of coastline, so we can build a lot of wind turbines. If we wanted to build a dam for hydroelectric power, we'd have to flood major towns and cities. Clearly people build whatever power generation is the most appropriate where they are. Everything has its benefits and drawbacks, which are weighted according to wherever you are. +IntelligentBacteria: + +Fair point, thank you for your input. However it seems that generally wind power is useless, since there are better alternatives to it, like in your case. Do you think that there is something that makes wind power exceptional? " +"cdb03b: The purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts. + +1) All class requirements are set by the Teachers and are subjective in standards. And most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements. + +2) You grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field. + +3) Once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them. Everyone needs a creative outlet. For some this is crafting something (carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc), for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc. +Bookworm12k: >1) All class requirements are set by the Teachers and are subjective in standards. And most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements. + +Grading in other subjects *can* be objective, while in fine arts they can't. Math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc. How can you measure acting objectively, or art? + +>2) You grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field. + +That improvement is limited by where you start. If you are deemed to be starting from an F, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an A. + +>3) Once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them. Everyone needs a creative outlet. For some this is crafting something (carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc), for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc. + +Why does everyone need a creative outlet?" +"MageZero: Modernity isn't the problem. People are the problem. It's not like human nature has changed in 200,000+ years. Modernity is a reflection of human nature, not the *cause* of it. You say that it's evil. Compared to what? I'd argue that it's not evil compared to any other time in human history. It may be ""evil"" compared to some Platonic fantasyland, but not compared to any past history that humans have created. +ephbomb: > You say that it's evil. Compared to what? I'd argue that it's not evil compared to any other time in human history. + +I'd say that Modernity is evil on its own terms. Modernity is liberalism applied to the world. Liberalism champions the notions of freedom and liberty; any liberal system you can name has been based off of slavery and unfree labour. Thus, modernity is antithesis to its own ideals. + +>It's not like human nature has changed in 200,000+ years. + +Also, I think we disagree about human nature. For example, while slavery has existed for thousands of years, modern European slavery was different in a specific set of ways. The Greeks didn't have permanent slavery. You could buy your way out. Your children weren't automatically slaves because you were. In the Euro-American context, this was reversed. +Also, the Greeks didn't really care what colour you were. They didn't see Black people as automatic slaves. Euro-American slavery clearly saw things differently. " +"Diabolico: You love your dad, but your dad was bad at relationships. He taught you to be bad at relationships. + +People who are bad at relationships are like wounded gazelles: they attract predators. + +There are also women who are bad at relationships, and the male predators they attract are just as bad as the women you've dealt with (often more violent). + +Your job is to learn to recognize when you are unhappy in a relationship and get out. A relationship isn't like a job: you don't need another one lined up for it to be a good idea to leave. Being alone on purpose is way better than being in a shitty relationship by accident. When you have the self-assurance to get out of a relationship with someone shitty, you'll be less likely to attract someone shitty in the first place. + +That's the lay of the land, but I'd like to mention a few things in your story: + +> We were all having a drink and dancing and having a good time when suddenly ""Why are you looking at that girls arse?"" [etc...] + +GET OUT. Jealousy is probably the single most toxic emotion in romantic relationships. If a line of questioning about where you have been going and what you have been doing lasts more than a week, just cut the whole thing off. Likewise, if you feel compelled to ask these questions of a partner, and the ordeal lasts more than a week, just cut it off. This isn't an indication that anyone's suspicions are correct, only that one of you (either the cheater, or the false accuser, as reality bears it out) is not emotionally ready for the relationship. + +I'm advocating an extremely harsh metric here, and plenty of people would disagree with me, but I'm tailoring this to you, yes you, with the trust issues. + +>woman in general as just overgrown children + +This is because your father was an overgrown child, and that is the kind of women he was attracted to. You might also be an overgrown child, and are attracted to these women. + +If you look specifically for women who are not overgrown children, you will discover plenty of them. They will be interested in you so long as you are not an overgrown child. + +You are living in the land of overgrown children, and all men and women in this land are overgrown children. You will be less sexist when you realize that the men are exactly the same, but because you aren't trying to fuck them it doesn't bother you so much. +BenTillTheEndOfTime: >You will be less sexist when you realize that the men are exactly the same, but because you aren't trying to fuck them it doesn't bother you so much. + +That is a very good perspective, thank you. + +However I must say that I was the one to issue the break up with my last girlfriend and I would have taken a bullet for her. Also I'm not trying to change my view just for a romantic partner, I need it changed just so I can be happy again. Just so I can tell myself that women are humans too and most of them are pretty great people, the few shit ones don't in fact ruin all of them. I know this in my head but I just can't feel it. + +I also wouldn't say my father was acting like an overgrown child, I think he was just desperate and lonely after many years alone. I get kind of lonely at times but I know not to be with anyone just for the sake of not being alone." +"thenewlove: You don't have to agree with anything in the book. Just as reading the Bible doesn't make you a Christian (following its teachings does), reading the Communist Manifesto doesn't make you a communist, or reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a Nazi, just reading the book doesn't make you complicit in anything. +lee3137: I agree. I think also the guilt is from purchasing the books, therefore I supported the books financially. +If I liked the books, it makes it more than just reading it." +"GaySunshine: Perhaps not acknowledged your own privilege, but it is important to acknowledge that others may not have had as easy of a time getting to where they are as you did. + +If you are looking at others in a different light this will surely change your actions. Therefore you acknowledgment of privilege changes your actions. +coveredinbeeees: Follow-up question: is there a difference between inequality and privilege? In my mind there could conceivably still be inequality in a world without privilege, in which case I could make an argument that being aware that others may have had a harder time need not follow directly from acknowledgement of privilege, but that is definitely something I hadn't considered." +"imnotbono: The score hiding may not effect the order with which the comments are displayed over all but in threads, which are really the purpose of this sub-reddit as they denote discussion, it is actually incredibly useful in ensuring people remain unbiased. Far too often around reddit I see 'performance debates' where one speaker accumulates a great amount of upvotes and the other a great amount of downvotes. This causes people to gloss over the latter and simply read the first as they believe it to be the 'good' one. As we want people to read both sides of the argument and decide for themselves before giving upvotes I believe the Score Hiding system is actually very useful. +StarManta: But comments with just a few downvotes get hidden below the threshold (even with score hiding). Doesn't that negate the advantage?" +"Madplato: Firstly, I think what you're describing is already happening, simply because women do get pregnant and, mandatory leave or not, will take time off work at some point because of it. There's not much way around it. In the event where the government pays most of the salary while on leave, I don't think hiring practice would change much. + +Secondly, I agree that paid paternity leave should also be an option in the event of a mandatory paid maternity leave, if only for the sake of equality. However, I don't think this will change the current hiring practices, simply because I believe males will be less likely to take these leaves than women. + + + +elvish_visionary: I do realize that there are already current biases present; I tried to communicate that in the OP but maybe it wasn't so clear. I still feel that paid maternity leave without paternity leave would likely make these biases even more present. From the employer's perspective, if they were already skeptical of hiring women because they would take time off for pregnancy, wouldn't they just be more reluctant if now they had to pay for that time off? A law requiring maternity leave would mandate the employer to pay for it. The money would not come from the government, at least not in a country like the U.S. " +"apt41790: As a D&D, WoW and MTG player who is fully capable of basic human hygiene, let me say this is one of the most poorly-written CMVs I have ever seen. You leave little to no room for you view to be changed and basically just used this subreddit as a place to make fun of and/or complain about a few people you didn't like. Honestly it sounds like you don't want your view changed, you just want to attack an entire group of people based upon two isolated experiences. It's an extremely prejudiced viewpoint from the get go. But, here we go anyway. + +To argue against your first point about D&D specifically, the rules are largely up to the dungeon master. For example, the group that I play with has a mantra of ""story trumps rules."" It's like putting $500 in the center of the board for free parking in Monopoly. It comes down to house rules. Dungeons and Dragons is such a wide open game with the possibility of a brand new experience every single time you play. It's unfair to base your entire opinion of the game based on one group that honestly sounds like a complete bore to play with. I saw a boring movie once, all movies must be terrible. + +I could go into the same points for Magic: The Gathering, but I don't feel like making the same exact points again. Your entire viewpoint seems to come down to the fact that you met shitty people, and not the games themselves. I implore you to give the games another chance with better people and you'll surely enjoy them quite a bit more. +galaxie499: On the contrary; I'm extremely willing for my view to be changed. However, hostile posts such as yours aren't going to do that. I'll continue to chat with the less rude replies." +"dokushin: The problem with this stance is that it permits suspension of moral standards based on the perceptions of the person making the decision. In other words, *society* has dictated rules for the ""means"" -- killing is wrong, rape is wrong, treat people equally, don't steal or threaten, etc. -- but the ""ends"" are decided *by an individual*. + +By saying the ends justify the means, you are saying that a person may ignore what society has decided is right based *solely on what they perceive to be right*. You are, in effect, saying that each person is welcome to define morality however suits them, since the ""ends"" are valued according to them. + +Even if you (somehow) construct a situation where society at large has equal participation in both means and ends, there is still a temporal argument to be made; i.e. valuation of ""means"" evolve with a society and are frequently tested and refined, whereas ""ends"" are by definition a single data point -- a single decision. + +Saying ends over means is equivalent to saying personal gain over social morals, which is a rejection of the social contract. You have the right to reject the social contract; society then has the right to reject you. +294116002: Of course. Morality is created by society but altered by each individual. Every person is going to have a different definition of ""acceptable"" means and ends. I don't mean to say that what I define as justifiable is objectively accurate. I mean to say that, based on each individual's goals for society and themselves, for every person's actions can be justified by the effects they cause *for every other individual*. " +"garnteller: Let's set aside Comcast for the moment, since it is a semi-monopoly in most places. + +Let's consider a company that just made the best video game ever. Why shouldn't they be able to charge whatever they want for it? You don't have to buy if you don't think it's worth it. They can set the price lower to get more sales and lower profit or higher for more profit and fewer sales. But either way, they will make what people want to pay for it. + +And then, seeing how much they made, another company comes in and invests to make an even better game. And the same thing begins again. + +Then, the first company goes back, invests a ton in a 3rd game, which completely bombs. + +Who is harmed by this process? Nobody is screwed because they don't have to buy the game. We end up with not just one but two great games because of the profit motive. The first company is able to survive the failure of game 3 because of the profits they made on game 1. + +Now, in your scenario, the developer behind the game, who is working a boring job writing code for spreadsheet software takes a look and decides that it's not worth the risk of quitting his job and spending a couple of years developing the killer game. Or even if he does, company 2 decides that it's not worth the investment for 15%. + +Now, Comcast is another story. As essentially a utility, I agree with regulating the bastards. + +farhil: You make a good point, however I don't believe it shows an inherit flaw in my view. Before I continue, I should clarify that none of the numbers I used (15%, 5 years) are based on any research, it's all conceptual. They are more of just placeholders. + +>Who is harmed by this process? Nobody is screwed because they don't have to buy the game. We end up with not just one but two great games because of the profit motive. The first company is able to survive the failure of game 3 because of the profits they made on game 1. + +That is why I said ""Profit over a 5 year period"". If after 4 years the company has made a 200% profit, there would be no penalty, but by the end of the 5th year if they haven't reinvested, lost, or otherwise spent that extra money, they would be fined and the money distributed; or if they have no interest in providing more/better services, they could sell the company to someone who will. It would still be a very lucrative venture and would allow for anyone involved to become very wealthy. + +>Who is harmed by this process? Nobody is screwed because they don't have to buy the game. We end up with not just one but two great games because of the profit motive. The first company is able to survive the failure of game 3 because of the profits they made on game 1. + +I agree. But what if the company starts making more and more money without increasing the wages of the people who worked so hard on all three? Then the CEO starts getting bonuses while the prices for the product raise, because people have begun to trust the brand and will pay despite the quality becoming worse due to overworked and underpaid employees. Or maybe the publishers have manipulated developers into unfair contracts and take a large portion of the development studio's profits while not spending much to benefit the studio?" +"scottevil110: Your argument is based on the notion that money can fix all of the problems that impoverished people face. This is simply not true. Sure, money can build a school, but it won't change the fact that millions of people live in a place that can barely produce food (and is losing even that ability with a changing climate). It doesn't change the fact that the politics of many of these regions are such that any resources sent there will immediately be confiscated by warlords. + +Sure, my $25 could help feed someone...if the food was actually able to get to them. But then what? A week from now they're back in exactly the same situation. +Biceptional: Many organisations such as UNICEF, MSF and the Gavi alliance don't just feed people but also provide vaccinations that can't just be confiscated by warlords. + +Not only that but not all people live under warlords so while i don't argue that not all problems can be solved you seem to be saying that none can be solved and it isn't worth giving any money at all because in some fringe situations it wouldn't be useful. " +"Bhorzo: > Why should we expect each other to deny our basic wiring and pretend we're something we're not? + +But jealousy is also a part of our basic wiring. Why should we deny it? + +> The more I think about our society's approach to relationships, the more I think it's just illogical + +Relationships often revolve around emotions, and not logic, in the first place. + +Also: What about family. Do you think a healthy and well-functioning family could be raised through an open relationship? + +Also: What about the increased STD risk that non-monogamy brings? + +Also: What does ego have to do with wanting one person to love you and have you as a priority in your life. You say this is an emotional thing - but I think it's a very logical and rational thing. Can you expand upon why you feel this way? +imsneaky: > But jealousy is also a part of our basic wiring. Why should we deny it? + +Not sure we're on the same page. Would you say something like putting others down to build yourself up is part of our basic wiring as well? Just because we have an impulse doesn't mean it's an admirable one. As an extreme example, Hitler had wiring that compelled him to murder millions of Jews. Don't you think our wiring should be vetted by logic? + +>Also: What about family. Do you think a healthy and well-functioning family could be raised through an open relationship? + +Yes. I think it would be difficult to be emotionally committed to more than one person and raise a family, but let's say you're out on a business trip and have a few drinks and an attractive individual and yourself hit it off, and you end up having a ""roll in the hay"". Does that mean you love your partner any less? Not necessarily...it could just mean you were turned on and wanted to satisfy your physical urges for the moment...but you're still completely invested *emotionally* in your partner/spouse. + +>Also: What about the increased STD risk that non-monogamy brings? + +Obviously there's a higher risk with this lifestyle, but that has little to do with the topic." +"hacksoncode: Impossible is a very strong word to use. But I have one hard to argue question to ask: + +In the case of every single adoption that has ever occurred for voluntary reasons on the part of the biological and adoptive parents, isn't that evidence that the biological parent didn't want to raise the child and that the adoptive parent *did*? + +This would seem to completely rule out your view that it's impossible, simply on the face of it. + +Now, if you mean something different, like ""if a parent has both a biological and adopted parent, they would love the biological child more"", there might be a slightly plausible argument that could be made. + +But the entire existence of adoption as a cultural phenomenon demonstrates that people can love/want children more than their biological parents did. +pipeandtweed: I don't think the existence of adoption rules out the possibility of loving an adopted child less than your biological child. Love is not all or nothing. I am talking about adoptive parents having great love for their adopted children, but just not being biologically able to love that adoptive child *as much as their biological children. Given this it makes for the possibility that an adoptive parent could love their adopted baby enough to not abandon it, and the possibility that the biological mother did not love the baby enough to keep the boy/girl, thereby creating adoption as a cultural phenomenon. + +On the flip side, given the reality that most abandoned babies in China are due to poverty, it could very well be that the biological mother gave up the baby with great suffering, because she loved the baby enough to be selfless and give her child a better future. " +"MageZero: There's a difference between being a film critic, and having an opinion about a film. If something in the plot interrupts one's suspension of disbelief, that's a legitimate criticism. If the criticism has merit, what does it matter if you consider it ""shallow""? + +Not everyone goes to film school, and not everyone views criticizing movies as an academic exercise. If a movie doesn't make a connection with a viewer does it really matter if the viewer didn't like it because of the plot, or casting, or if a viewer didn't like it because it ripped off Battleship Potempkin? +sloggz: Again, I don't think there' anything necessarily wrong with people criticizing the plot, or having issues with it. I love watching people mercilessly take apart the plot holes in bad movies, or in getting caught up in the complexities of a great plot. + + +My issue is that this seems to be far too large of a focus for many film-watchers. + + +If you say that, who am I to judge them for not liking it? It's not that I judge them, I feel bad for them, and I wish that more people challenged this way of thinking more often. + + + +I already used this example in my OP, but I feel like I'm living in a world where everyone judges music primarily on the lyrics, and not the sound of the song. (Except replace music with movies, and plot with lyrics). " +"SC803: I think its best to skip buying sabotages in the first round and save money for the later rounds. I've seen people blow their money too early and have no way to defend themselves in the later rounds. Also you help avoid revenge sabotages, the first round can be such a crap shoot and while the dogpile might ensure one person leaves, you don't know if you've dogpiled a strong chef or a weak chef and wasted money. + +Now in the second round I could see this working. If you and the third chef realizes that chef #2 is very strong and adaptable, dogpiling chef #2 would be a solid strategy. +huadpe: The dogpile question is strictly about what to do once you've already won a sabotage. It's independent of the question of how much to spend on the sabotage." +"KevinWestern: But as a father, I might not want my daughter to grow up to be a fast food cash register worker either - right? + +That doesn't mean I'm against the concept of fast food or the people who work there, but rather it means I want my daughter to find a career that utilizes something like her mind, rather than her physical labor (or physical form). + +You might fully realize **some** people are better suited for a life of physical labor, or taking orders at McDonalds (or porn), but as a father you generally tend to think larger for your own children. +resonator97: I might not encourage my daughter to work as a cashier but if she is an adult and decides to make that choice for their life I would tell them my opinion and why I don't think they should do it but leave it open to them since it would be hypocritical to say that they cannot be a cashier since it has to be done by someone and assuming your kids are better than everyone else's kids is selfish. + +If being a fast food worker is a shitty job, then I should stop eating at McDonald's so I do not support a company that is this form of shitty employment. Personally I do not eat at fast food restaurants (I eat there once or twice a year) so I would feel completely morally just telling my kids not to work there since I do not support the company." +"DerekReinbold: I'm a tennis player so I'm going to use that as an analogy. In tennis, we often times practice new techniques with slow, hand-fed balls. A coach will stand close and toss a ball easily up for us to hit. This gives the player additional time to process and understand their technique. + +For instance, if I were to learn a forehand from scratch I wouldn't want to go out and just start hitting it. This would leave me open to the possibility that I would do it incorrectly before the proper swing was ingrained in my head/body. + +I think a lot of these training videos operate on somewhat the same principle. Sure you'll probably never be attacked in *exactly* the same manner that they are demonstrating, but that's not the point. The point is that in learning some basic principles in a controlled environment you can begin to develop the skills necessary for real-life situations. + +The guy in the video isn't suggesting that if you just watch that video you'll be ok to go out and win any street fight, so I think you're misinterpreting the purpose. +bonzothebeast: > The guy in the video isn't suggesting that if you just watch that video you'll be ok to go out and win any street fight, so I think you're misinterpreting the purpose. + +I understand what you mean. Practice. + +&#8710;" +"Crooooow: You are telling me why we shouldn't NOT make a law, but can you tell me why we should? I think the reason people say its racist is because whats the point? Going through the process of passing a law is usually for the purpose of fixing a problem in society and helping people. When you want a law that says 'we speak English here', you are saying that people who do not speak English are a detriment to society. I know plenty of people who are new to this country and learning English is on their to-do list, but first they need to find a job and a home and jump through a lot of hoops. It can already be a discouraging process but they do it because they know they can make a better life here. + +>It doesn't mean we are trying to exclude other cultures, just that we are trying to make a cohesive American culture. + +One of the greatest things about America is that it does not have a cohesive culture. New York is different from LA is different from Chicago but all three might as well be on a different planet than Gainseville or Charleston, yet all these are a part of an amazing diverse country. +Cryptic_kitten: >I know plenty of people who are new to this country and learning English is on their to-do list + +They are learning English because that is the language the majority of American's speak. In other words they are learning it because it is basically the national language. + +I agree that the culture isn't cohesive, and that diversity makes things interesting. However, I can still go to one of these places and talk the same language and share at least language as a unifying thing. + +I guess that the biggest benefit of making English our national language would be in our public institutions. Currently I am a senior in high school, and I know students have lived here for ~2-3 years in our ESL program. They still speak barely any English, because the priority of our program isn't to actually teach English for some reason. " +"Daedalus1907: The people that are going to go 120 mph are going to disable the limiters. Also, there are race tracks where you can take your car to its limit. + +Specifically regarding the 80 mph limit, when passing someone on a 2 lane highway it might be beneficial to go over 80 since you have to go into oncoming traffic to get around them. +99am: I don't feel like those cases are big enough comparing to the overall increase in road safety that can be achieved by limiters." +"[deleted]: Person A presumably passed the knowledge within the citizenship test in high school/junior high. So, anyone with a GED/High School Diploma was presumably as aware of the knowledge during the time before the test. + +Furthermore, Person C can become a citizen without passing the test under certain circumstances. + +edit: I'm not implying a diploma is required to vote, just that most of us have already essentially taken the citizenship in one form or another. +EpicPiDude: You don't need to have a diploma to vote, to my knowledge. +RE: certain circumstances: What are they? I'm just kinda interested." +"JustDoItPeople: OP, it seems your beliefs essentially boil down to, ""Politicians should be able to say whatever they want to in 10 seconds worth of a speech, and they should be crucified if they haven't gotten that lesson down."" + +But that seems an utterly silly thing to say, and I'm saying that as someone who really dislikes Hillary. + +Racism is not something that can be discussed in a sound bite. It is not something that can be properly discussed entirely within the context of a speech. Policy is not something that should be made or broken on the back of a couple of well placed sentences. + +So to properly answer your question: +>So why in the hell would she deliver a speech with the sentiment of basically ""Black people are scary... is what a racist would say. Racism is bad."" + +Is not even what she was saying. Her speech was rather saying, ""People have these little biases and racist thoughts, and we should constantly challenge these thoughts."" Of course, it might be helpful to elucidate on what exactly she means with that. + +But at the broader question at hand, when you say, +>Given that this is the norm for modern day news, I think politicians have a responsibility to avoid creating problematic soundbites + +I think the consequence is that we've actually limited the public debate, and insulted our own intelligences in the process. +shirshine: Your reply makes sense in the abstract/theoretical: of course we should always do our research and learn the whole story! But in the practical, flash news segments are the reality, and politicians should be better equipped to deal with it. + +I do concede, though, that most (probably all) topics are way too complicated to be summed up in a perfect 10 second bite, and we as voters should be placing more stock on a candidates content rather than their image" +"incruente: The whole validity of this idea revolves around a pair of things. First, that it could be implemented (because an idea that can't be used is useless). So the + +> Dunno. + +Isn't really all that compelling. But second, and far more importantly, that this class is something which is accessible to everyone and which makes some people ""fit"" to vote, or at least proves that they are. And you can't really come up with a sound standard for that. Who decides what these standards are? Who tests them? Who enforces them? The idea of democracy isn't to come up with the BEST decisions. The idea is that everyone has part of the power, to exercise as they see fit. Only by sharing the power can we share the responsibility. If you start demanding levels of education or certain knowledge, you're well on your way to forming a privileged upper class that rules over a lower class which it regards as uneducated and unfit to rule even itself. Which is kind of what we worked so hard to get away from. +mahaanus: >If you start demanding levels of education or certain knowledge, you're well on your way to forming a privileged upper class that rules over a lower class which it regards as uneducated and unfit to rule even itself. + +Well - what I suggest does segregate people. I will not mince words here, my idea would split people in certain classes. However, these classes are not separated by economical divides, but between people who want to do educated votes and people who don't. + +>The idea of democracy isn't to come up with the BEST decisions. The idea is that everyone has part of the power, to exercise as they see fit. Only by sharing the power can we share the responsibility. + +If a manager at a company makes bad decisions, he's fired. If a CEO drops profits by a large margin, he get's fired. Accountability for incompetence must exists. Now I'm not saying that there are people who vote for a ""wrong party"", I do not see this education being ideological, but mostly economical and some basic psychological concepts. + +Also, I'd like to point out that we're living in a Republic or Representative Democracy, rather than a Direct Democracy for a reason." +"mossimo654: So it seems like you're making the argument that we live in the best *time* to listen to music because we are the first generation to have access to all of history's musical contributions at the click of a button. If you're actually arguing that the music *made* today is ""the best,"" then I'm sorry my friend, you're wrong, not only because that's a completely subjective claim, but also because... come on. + + +selfhatingyank: > If you're actually arguing that the music made today is ""the best,"" then I'm sorry my friend, you're wrong + +What I'm saying is that that is completely irrelevant to most people who would make that claim. With the improvement of music and data storage and distribution, who cares if the new music is good when you have a hundred years of recording from every continent and genre known to man at the click of a button? If you don't like new music, *don't listen to it.* Even if new stuff is utter horse manure, it's being added to a century-long inheritance of great music." +"wee_woo_motherfucker: It's not meant to be generous in the sense that someone is gaining financially at the end of it, it's meant to feel good. In the end, everyone is spending roughly the amount they would have spent anyway, but in addition to whatever product they receive, they also get the pleasure of A) receiving a gift from the person in front of them and B) feeling generous in buying a gift for the person after them. +daniel6990: &#8710; I guess that makes sense. I think my understanding was that it was meant to cover for someone so they didn't have to pay, but I can see where the giving and receiving aspect would be enjoyable. + +Btw, is your username Spongebob related? " +"Mavericgamer: The problem with this is that you're getting only one side of the story. It sounds all abhorrent that an animal had its eyes sewn shut, but I find it unlikely to the point of not being worth considering that scientists had no good reason for an experimental group of animals with forced sightlessness. + +Animal testing is just the least cruel we can be while trying to save the human race. The ALF might save the lives of hundreds of animals publically, but that research, uninterrupted, may save thousands or millions of human lives that will now be lost because of delays in research. Even if you are looking at it from the standpoint where animals = humans in terms of the moral cost for 1 life, freeing 100 who weren't likely to die, but arguably may have suffered, at the expense of 1,000 lives is pretty immoral. +helpCMV: I completely understand your point, and I myself used to hold that view until I thought: 'how would the public react if it was a human in the animal's place?' + +In the UoC lab: + +>The experiments were designed to study the behavioral and neural development of monkeys reared with a sensory substitution device + +Which doesn't sound very 'life-saving' to me, in fact many of these animals face unnecessary pain and abuse. + +In addition, I have read articles which suggest that animal research often does more harm than good in the medical field. Of course, most articles about that topic will be very biased, though, as it is very controversial." +"maxpenny42: Right now I pay for Internet speed. I pay a little for slow speed or a lot for fast speed. Why should I pay a lot for fast speed when the purpose of going that (Netflix) is throttled at slower speeds anyway? Basically Netflix shouldn't have to pay Verizon extra because I'm already paying the ISP for the faster service. And Netflix is already paying someone to upload the video. Basically Verizon and other ISPs want to double dip like how they used to charge for text messages both when you sent and received them thereby charging for the same transaction twice. +I_cant_speel: I understand your point but why is it wrong to split the costs between the consumer of content (us) and the providers of content (Netflix). If they are charging more because it is costing them more, thus hitting their bottom line, why are they required to charge consumers to make up the lost profits?" +"Twigsnapper: While impressive there is one major flaw. It is online. While the human race is around...this is a fine assumption. When talking about aliens possibly gathering better insight about us...if the servers are down..that information is useless. One can say that if you have it written it would be way too big and if destroyed, that too...is also useless. The difference is the physical mobility of the information. + +Online information is useless without electricity and the ability/know how to access it. Where as books and words are there forever (figuratively). + +I guess i'm not really trying to Change your view and apologize for that but to realize how fragile that data stored on a server can be, compared to that of physical manifestations of said information. + +Wikipedia also doesn't go into detail about specific peoples books and writings. While it is impressive to have the data of knowing what they have written, the actual knowledge and indepth discussion of said topics are not there. I believe the Library of Congress could contest wikipedia in information. +Marvellously-Edible: True. It may be harder to access once humans aren't around, but not impossible. If intelligent life was trying to uncover Earth's past, I believe that they could certainly access the internet fairly easily. Considering there plenty of are hard copies of information that offer information about the internet and how it works. " +"BlueApple4: ""I saw a statistic(Not sure of validity) the other day that said almost half of all college graduates are working in jobs that don't require college degrees. That made me shudder."" + +There is a difference between requiring a college degree for the job, and requiring a college degree to get a job. Like it or not it's an employers market place out there. And employers can be picky about who they select for a job. Why should I not pick ones that have college degrees. 2nd point on this, the majority of employers will take either someone with at least 5 years of experience, or a college degree. In this instance the degree subsitutes for lack of job experience. + +Additionally college degrees show that you are willing to work towards a goal and earn something. You can show this with working too, but it's a little harder. College degrees also show that you can learn and apply knowledge, which is a little easier to branch into new fields of expertise. + +As far as ""worth it"", college degrees on average have a 1.3 million dollar lifetime earnings more than their high school diploma coworkers. + +NOTE: I'm not downplaying Trade or Vocational schools. I do think that they are an important option for some individuals. But not everyone wants to do that kind of work. Either trade school or college is a much better option then just a high school diploma. +jRigden: Well I am currently leaning toward a vocational school. What is the benefit in going towards a university?" +"cleansoap: I agree with the title of your post, as (ignoring all ethical, environmental, health, and political angles of GMOs (which I will continue to ignore for the entirety of this conversation as they are NOT what's being talked about)) GMOs are a productivity increasing technology. It is historically commonplace that small businesses are the ones which suffer when market-shifting technologies come on-line because *what makes a technology market shifting is the dramatic increase in productivity it allows* , and small businesses, on the whole, are much less likely to have access to the capital needed to implement these game-changers early on. + +What I'm going to argue with, in compliance with comment rule #1, is this line ""thus they are basically being swindled. "" + +It is not the sellers of high-yield enabling GMOs which are doing the swindling, if anything it is the market itself. First-world large-scale production of (often GMO) crops has driven prices down dramatically. Driven prices down so low that often imported crops are cheaper than crops grown by local *and inefficient* farmers. THAT is the source of pressure. + +What would benefit small farmers would be the removal of artificial subsidies which force them to compete with government-lowered food prices, but that is probably sticking a finger in the dam. The hanging sword is still the efficiency imbalance. +clavicon: I definitely agree that state subsidies are complicating the issue of free market decisions among farmers and consumers, and leveraging much cheaper crops made in power centers, like corn in the US, against other world markets lacking such support and entrenched production/technology. + +On the matter of state, do you know if governments in developing countries actively cater to GMO corporations, and offer subsidies or lowered taxes in order to get farmers to adopt these technologies?" +"GameboyPATH: >Firstly let me say that this is my first post in this sub, and I'm hoping that it's the correct place. + +You're in the right place. Welcome! + +Have you ever watched [the episode of South Park](http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s05e02-it-hits-the-fan) where everyone found it publicly acceptable to say ""shit"", and the result was everyone started saying it without a care? The message of the story was that swearing carries with it a significant emotional strength. Swearing is ""strong language"" because it's used only sparingly to express strong emotion or to reduce inflicted pain or stress. + +So when swearing is used commonly, the strong feelings associated with it are lost, since no one is going to infer strong emotion from a word that's commonly used. If you (and society around you) swear a lot from the minor inconveniences, what language would you use if you experienced tremendous injustice and felt significant rage and inner pain? + +What's this have to do with kids? We want to encourage kids to have an expansive vocabulary so that they can adequately express themselves and convey their thoughts and feelings. Teaching a kid to swear is akin to giving the kid the trump card. Why should they learn or use broader language to understand or express their negative feelings when they can just complain about the fucking bitch who can't do shit? + +In short, if you'd trust your children with ice cream in hopes that they'd eat it only in moderation (and in the context of a broader array of healthier foods), you could teach them swearing. Otherwise, give them time to understand moderation and the effects of language on others. +Kaleb1983: &#8710; + +Hopefully I did that right. + +Edit: Wow.. that actually makes a lot of sense. I never really thought about it like that, thank you. +I think I'm really going to like this sub. I just posted a controversial opinion and got a well thought out and logical response instead of a down vote :). + +Combined my post explaining how he changed my view with the post awarding the delta. Hopefully that fixed it so he's awarded the delta correctly." +"moonflower: When my children were born, I wanted to bring them up without ever lying to them, and managed to do it, so I agree with you to a certain extent, *but* I think there could be exceptional circumstances where it would be in the best interests of the child to lie: for example if a young child was due to undergo major surgery which was very risky, I think it would be best to reassure them that everything will be fine, and not to fill them with terror by spelling out what might go wrong. +RickySTaylor: Hmm, okay I can see the benefits of this. Short term reassurance. It's an easy solution, but I still think developing a habit of this is wrong. You can cushion your child from worry but you only have so many cushions. Constant softening of the blow is rejecting them an essential emotional experience. Essential for development that is. + +I do like the example you presented, It does a good job of representing that there could be a physical benefit to the lie. A relaxed child may be better in an operation. ∆ That said, I don't think the adult should bear that burden alone, especially if it concerns the child's life. If you yourself were going into the same operation you'd make an effort to understand the risks. Instead of telling him that everything is going to be alright (a blanket statement that can't cover everything and I think that's where easythe doubt lies.) tell him that the doctors have trained for years and have done the operation before. If the doctor wouldn't lie to the child I don't think the parent should. Sorry - I ramble, I just want to reiterate that there's always a constructive way to solve the problem. It may take more time but it's ultimately worth it." +"mizz_kittay: Well I *think* these people actually do feel humbled by their great experiences. They experience something amazing and great that the vast majority of human beings will never get to experience, and it makes them feel guilty. They don't feel like they are some extraordinary special person who deserves this experience while other humans don't deserve to experience it... rather, they think *all* humans deserve to experience it and they feel guilty that only they get to experience it. Coming to terms with this guilt and accepting that this is just the luck of the draw that is life and you aren't anything special even though you get to do this special thing *is* ""humbling."" If the people you refer to use it like that, then they're using it properly. +LiveBeef: I haven't been put in such a position personally, but based on my observations of how they react, 'guilt' seems like the last emotion they feel. Even if so, the sentence ""I wish others could feel what I feel now"" is a much more accurate way to describe that feeling than ""I feel humbled"" which has connotations of lowering oneself. Humility and guilt are not the same emotion." +"MrMonday11235: It's not a question of ""Is attempting to mind control him wrong"" - it is. But the thing a lot of people, I think, forget when they evaluate that is that they're carrying the Queen of Naboo on board, a fact that will eventually get out if they stay too long. Moreover, they're fully aware that the Trade Federation could track them down really easily (as they do, but that's due to Sith dark magic XD), and they need to disappear before they're tracked to Tatooine. While it has been a fairly long time since I actually watched the movie (and as such the details are a little hazy), to the best of my knowledge, there wasn't anywhere else they could get that particular part, and there was no way for them to pay Watto in a manner that would be acceptable for him. + +Qui-Gon in general likely doesn't go around Jedi mind-tricking random merchants into giving him their wares, but it's a case of urgency and an on-the-spot judgement of whether standing there and arguing over it was worth the potential risk of jeopardizing their entire mission, as well as control of a planet, it's population, and potentially its monarch's life. +Vorpal_Smilodon: > and there was no way for them to pay Watto in a manner that would be acceptable for him + +In the next scene Qui-Gon makes a radio call to find out if they have anything of value they could trade to get the part - they don't, but he didn't know that when he tried to mindcontrol Watto. + +You make a good point that he's on an urgent mission though. But he still doesn't investigate any other options. The ship is later shown to be wirth a lot to Watto in it's broken state - he could likely have traded it for a lesser but working ship. He just doesn't put any effort into problem-solving and goes straight for mindcontrol." +"Racathor: Would it not be far simpler for the host to provide the appropriate cutlery, and after a meal, clean it properly in soap and water? I think this would be more hygienic, and add to the atmosphere of a restaurant. Particularly higher-end locations, the cutlery is part of the appearance of the dish. + +In addition, there are, as you've noted, case specific pieces of cutlery. If I carry a foldable spork, eating ramen, or Chinese food, or sushi would feel simply wrong, as I should be using chopsticks. Alternatively, if I choose to eat a sunday roast, with lamb, potatoes and vegetables, chopsticks would be inefficient and feel wrong. The best case is probably things like steaks, where you need a specific knife to be able to easily cut it. A lot of people don't decide in advance where to eat, and I think allowing the restaurant to provide non-disposable cutlery, they will then clean, is a much better idea. +Love_Em: I have no issue with non-disposable metal cutlery provided by restaurants, I just think replacing disposable cutlery with your own permanent set would be beneficial to the environment. " +"mayoneggz: Some people simply find it much harder to pick up new languages, especially with age. My father is someone who took german for years and could never pick it up. Should he continue putting in time in learning a new language instead of something he's more talented in? He is a doctor in a city where every person speaks english. He has no plans to travel. It would take a large amount of time for him to learn a new language and it would take away from his job and hobbies. + +I agree that for many people, learning a new language is great. But for some it's not worth the time and effort. +xNtrozSquared: I do agree that learning a new language is hard (learning Spanish now) I was more focused on the fact that middle and elementary schools should be required to teach another language." +"TheHellion: > Basically you can(/should be able to) cycle + +That doesn't work in all climates. If you lived in a very cold or very warm place, you you wouldn't want to cycle. + +> or get public transport to shops and places of work. + +Public transport takes ages to get to the same place you're going to, and it often doesn't take you there directly, but through many intermediate steps. Furthermore, it doesn't take you there where you need to go, but it takes you more or less in the vicinity. + +Granted, if what you propose were ever to become a reality, the network of public transport would become more extended, but I still doubt that it would be extended enough to provide a viable alternative. + +And what should the elderly and people with disabilities do, when the bus drops them three blocks away from where they need to be? + +Plus don't forget that not everyone lives in a city, and a bus cannot go to and from a country town every ten minutes. That would greatly limit the possibility of movement of people living in towns and villages. +Omni314: M∆N OH MAN! Do I wish I hadn't started this thread, yeah it's pretty flawed on a great number of levels." +"cwenham: People feel ownership for the places they spend enough time in, so even if it's a privately owned web site, the fact that they opened it up for anyone to join means the effect will take hold. + +If you do this, if you lay this ""trap"" unwittingly or otherwise, then things like /r/subredditcancer et. al will happen. At the Spock-level of logic, such people would move somewhere else if they don't like what the site's owners are doing. Go to [voat.co](https://voat.co) and leave us alone. But we're not Spocks, we're Kirks. Fuck the Neutral Zone. + +In the future, I think the operators of forums similar to reddit will recognise the implicit social deal: you like all this traffic and commercial potential? You like having over 100 million pageviews per month? You like being cited in mainstream news articles? Okay, well that comes at a cost beside your servers and bandwith: this place is now _ours_. No backsies. + +I've been told that the American Civil War was not really about slavery but about the degree of control that the Federal government wanted to put on the states, after a hundred years of minding their own business. The expectation of self-control was already baked in, so even a mind-bogglingly positive policy such as the abolition of slavery was the canary in the coal-mine. The states revolted and it got messy. + +What's happening on reddit is at a microscopic level compared to the Civil War, but many of the same feelings are mixed in. It's just part of human nature, and that's why Pao's actions will be harmful: the implicit contract was broken, no matter how good the intentions for breaking it. +superboombox: &#8710; + +While I stand by my original prediction, you have changed the way I view those who are concerned. " +"tamman2000: White and asian kids get warnings for crimes that black and latin kids get prison for... White kid smokes pot: ""he's learned his lesson"" Black kid smokes pot: ""he is a cancer on society, lock him up"". + +you can't blame blacks and mexicans for this truth. that is one hundred percent bias based... and this (along with other bias derived hardships) trickles out over society as a whole to disadvantage many minorities. +throwoutisnttaken: On the Marijuana issue, you're definitely right. This seems to be the case because sentencing for drug possession is massively skewed, due to the debate on whether or not anything wrong was even done at a moral level. This is a law that has far too much subjectivity, and that shows in its enforcement. + +With something like robbing a bank or mugging someone, however, it's much more (pardon the pun) black-and-white. If someone who had a knife to someone else's back and demanded money was caught, I doubt very much that anyone would say ""he learned his lesson"", regardless of race... and with these crimes, it's still skewed among races. + +Thank you for your reply, and happy cake day!" +"NuclearStudent: There are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil. Your boyfriend would be correct in that there are tremendous numbers of planets the size of earth, with water, carbon, and complex organic molecules to form life. Out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth. + +Knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we haven't seen any. We don't know the answer, but it's unlikely that scientists are covering it up. We would not be spending billions of dollars to look for something that we needed to hide. It's also unlikely that aliens would take the time to cloak themselves from all of earth's telescopes, amateur and scientific, but flutter around completely visible to airline pilots. + +The most likely possibility is that whatever aliens may exist are too far away to contact us. +dessert_all_day: &#8710; I didn't know that there are trillions of planets and knowing that has made me believe that it's possible that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. + +>Out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth." +"IIIBlackhartIII: I think it's a very simplistic idea that solving our issues comes down to having a smaller population. Most of our issues in the modern world are very multi-dimensional, and population is but a single factor. Pair that with the fact that [most people in the world live in some kind of poverty](http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats), and the[ global population trend shows that there's more people in underdeveloped nations than first world countries](http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx), and I don't think your solution would be the perfect answer you think it is. +___ +#As direct responses to your categories, however: + +##Global Warming/Ecological Impact: + +The fact that most of the world is not highly developed shows that a lot of this pollution comes not from a bigger population, but from more developed regions with higher population density. There are plenty of ways to cut down on pollution without necessarily reducing population size. There are pushes for green energy, more efficient technologies, tighter regulations on corporate environmental practices, pushes for recycling, mass transit and carpooling, electric cars, etc... By reducing the population, you might potentially slow the rate of development, but the issue of global warming is a cumulative effect of emissions over time. We'd still have to deal with the environmental changes, but perhaps we'd have more time to deal with it. That's more a bandaid fix than a solution outright. + +##Global Energy/Food Shortage: + +In terms of energy production and food supplies... we actually aren't doing that bad in the world. The only issue is that [developed nations hoard their resources](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland), leading to starvation in regions like Africa and much of Asia. There was a great post over on /r/theydidthemath; and an [amazing comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qzts1/request_how_much_money_would_it_cost_the_citizens/cnb3apd) which calculated that first world countries only make up about 12% of the population, and even still it would only cost us 9¢ a day to end world hunger, or less than 5% of the United States annual military spending. + +For the energy part of this equation, we already have limitless resources for power (e.g. the sun, hydroelectrics, wind farms, etc...) we just need more pushes to actually pursue this technology, which is not going to make OPEC happy, but they do not represent the best interests of humanity in the long term. + +##War: + +Reducing population isn't going to end violence or war any time soon. We've had wars throughout the history of humanity, even when the distances were great between peoples. Population may increase the relative stress of resource distribution, but with how technology has offset that process, it really comes down to violence, diplomacy, and greed. And as above with the effects of global warming; we're going to use up our resources eventually. The issue is not to try and slow the bleed, it's to explore other options to keep our growth sustainable. Looking towards alternative materials, recycling, asteroid mining, etc... + +##Epidemic: + +We're already pursuing herd immunity and we've been able to destroy diseases like small pox in the past. Despite what the crazy anti-vaxxers might try to tell you, vaccinations are protecting our population from outbreaks. That said, increased population is a concern, but only if the health standards are affected by this increase in population. If living in sanitary conditions, the number of people is less important that the treatment received for illness. And, with the interconnection of the world, while you may reduce the overall population, the requirement for corporations, businesses, and interaction would lead to greater contact overall. The greatest threat in terms of epidemic and pandemic really is transportation, and how these diseases can ride on ships, planes, and trains to spread themselves rapidly. Population is only one factor. + +##Psychological issues: + +While there may be some stress from living in a big city, I don't think you can attribute all mental health issues, or indeed most, just to population side. Setting aside the fact that there are plenty of extroverts who would thrive in a more populous region, those who are under stresses that lead to depression and other mental illness are often driven there not by the number of people around them, but by the societal pressures that population brings. Competing for jobs, dealing with negative advertisements and peer pressure, feeling threatened by certain people, trying to support ones self. It's more about quality than quantity. +turboboob: Okay, those are all good points. I appreciate you not calling me crazy or a doomsday enthusiast. I get that a lot. + +To address one point, I may have made the post title a little more clickbaity than I could have. I know population control isn't going to be a be-all end-all solution to large problems, but I do think it'll still be a good sign if we could collectively acknowledge that there's a problem that if it isn't here yet, is coming. + +Alright, down to the details! + +>The fact that most of the world is not highly developed shows that a lot of this pollution comes not from a bigger population, but from more developed regions with higher population density. + +I guess I don't see the distinction between what I perceive as a large population and what was proven as a small population with areas of high density. The numbers are still the same, they're just arranged differently. + +If we looked at NYC and took the population down 75%, there would still be less people requiring goods and services which would therefore require less transportation for delivery of those goods and services. By that logic, the average carbon footprint of the city would diminish over time. + +I understand that the damage that has been done has been done, and that moving forward there will need to be be adjustments both for the effects that have already taken place as well as efforts to reduce future impacts, but having a smaller population would allow for more time to to make those adjustments while minimizing the damage done during the transition to a more sustainable culture. + +>The only issue is that developed nations hoard their resources, leading to starvation in regions like Africa and much of Asia. There was a great post over on /r/theydidthemath; and an amazing comment which calculated that first world countries only make up about 12% of the population, and even still it would only cost us 9¢ a day to end world hunger, or less than 5% of the United States annual military spending. + +I may have just been taken in by the news on this one. It really seems like there has been a lot of coverage on shortages but really that can just be attributed to the hoarding of resources, which nobody reports on but most people know about. There's a reason that we can go to a grocery store in the US and have our pick of the goods while our counterparts in Somalia are fighting for a meal a day. I'll have to read that thread from /r/theydidthemath. + +I guess in the end if I wanted to stick to my guns on this topic, I could argue that if there were less people vying for the static number of resources, there would be a logical tipping point where hoarding would be more costly than sharing and those without could receive resources from those who have too much in order to keep the resources from going bad. But I think that was the basis for trickle down economics...haha so maybe not. + +>violence, diplomacy, and greed. +I'm struck by how these are all innate qualities in man that drive war. One other quality of man is the need to consume, where we use those three initial qualities to sustain the demand to consume. That leads me back to war and the need to consume a commodity that another group owns. + +The problem I run into with my own train of thought here is that the only way to properly provide resources to all groups when the those resources are held by a singular group is the basis of socialism, which doesn't work for me. So I agree that war probably won't *end* since we've divvied up the world and it's assets already and we're not going to be dissolving borders anytime soon. I'm having trouble tying that one back to overpopulation, so I'll concede. + +>increased population is a concern, but only if the health standards are affected by this increase in population. + +Alright, one I can REALLY dig into since I have firsthand experience! Increased population *is* without a doubt causing healthcare standards to stagnate if not recede. I've looked deeply into this topic, and I'm going to sketch out a line of events to follow: population growth --> need for more production of goods and services to sustain quality of life for population --> more hours worked resulting in the decline of general health of the population (think obesity from fast foods etc.) --> greater strain on the healthcare system as unhealthy population ages --> strain on actual healthcare workers in form of greater number of patients --> more patients = lower level of care per patient. + +The only reason I can argue this one is because I see it everyday. There is a definite shift towards in our population that's driven by those of us working longer hours at a sedentary job that doesn't allow for proper diet or exercise. My wife's a nurse and I'm getting my masters in public health and safety. We both see it everyday and it's terrifying. Couple my firsthand experience with the fact that insurance companies are now implementing wellness programs to reduce the costs they're paying out in claims because prevention is always cheaper than treatment and it's paints a pretty decent picture. + +> And, with the interconnection of the world, while you may reduce the overall population, the requirement for corporations, businesses, and interaction would lead to greater contact overall. The greatest threat in terms of epidemic and pandemic really is transportation, and how these diseases can ride on ships, planes, and trains to spread themselves rapidly. Population is only one factor. + +FWIW I agree completely. The fact that we're so physically connectable now is something that even population control won't fix. Even with a smaller population the planes, trains and automobiles will still run. + +>While there may be some stress from living in a big city, I don't think you can attribute all mental health issues, or indeed most, just to population side. + +Absolutely not. I doubt that there are people who are actually becoming consciously depressed over population growth. It's the implications of it that help psychological issues present. I think that you were driving at in the second part of your response is exactly what I was saying: +>those who are under stresses that lead to depression and other mental illness are often driven there not by the number of people around them, but by the societal pressures that population brings. Competing for jobs, dealing with negative advertisements and peer pressure, feeling threatened by certain people, trying to support ones self. It's more about quality than quantity. + +It's my opinion that all of those things that add to quality of life are threatened when the population reaches critical mass and that's what drives the psychological issues. If there's overpopulation in the city, there's fewer jobs. If there's fewer jobs, there's higher unemployment. If there's higher unemployment, there's a greater amount of household stress. If there's greater household stress, there's a greater chance of mental trauma leading to a psychological issue. + +I absolutely *raced* to respond, so if this is all incoherent rambling please don't think me unintelligent. I'm probably going to go in and revise some things and formatting after I reread. + + +" +"n_5: Remember, the argument that mass piracy preserves things assumes that hundreds of years from now we'll have technology which can read in and play back the same files we're pirating today. It's all well and good if we have thousands of hard drives remaining 600 years from now, each with the entirety of the GoT universe (books, TV show, lore, you name it) stored on it. However, if there aren't any computers (or other devices) available to play them back to you, those hard drives are essentially useless. To put it another way, it's like [that scene from Zoolander](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uHBhKTSe0) where they're trying to figure out how to access the files in the computer. If the files exist, then we technically have preserved them - but if we can't actually access them, then what's the point? + +Part of the reason cave paintings have survived so well is because they're entirely intelligible even without any other knowledge of human culture. Monks' manuscripts from the middle ages are similar, in that they've preserved materials in a language we understand - but what happens in a thousand years where someone who has no knowledge of the English or Latin or Italian (etc.) languages or any way to get that knowledge stumbles upon those manuscripts? They'll have the really old stuff in tactile, tangible form, but they won't be able to access any of the information on it. Hard drives would be even worse - if you can't get into them and see the files stored there, they serve no purpose other than really old paperweight. + +So, to answer your question: Is home recording/piracy an effective form of preservation? Sure. Is it the *most* effective, though? Absolutely not. If you really want to be able to store GoT effectively, paint the entire series on a cave wall somewhere. +mrsix: > : Is home recording/piracy an effective form of preservation? Sure. Is it the most effective, though? Absolutely not + +∆ + +There's really no way to counter that. I suppose it's certainly not the *most* effective in general, but as long as we have digital medium and the ability to read it, I would still contend it's at least the most effective way of preserving a digital file." +"championofobscurity: The simple answer, is that at least in the United States, with very few exceptions people are ""At Will"" employees. Meaning that if you aren't up to the task, a company can just fire you. + +What this means is that it's much more efficient for an impersonal HR person to interview you for two reasons. + +1.) It adds something to their job, and once you're big enough to have an HR department you can't hope to be functional without one, so you may as well utilize your investment in it. + +2.) It takes time away from a person's ability to work, if they have to do interviews repeatedly. You have to consider that, on average you can't just interview a single person and call it good. You have to entertain multiple applicants, which means that over the course of a week you might pull 15 or more hours of Research and Development time away from a project so you can hire one person. That's assuming the situation is as cut and dry as I've stated. A lot of the time that isn't the case. +cognitive_labyrinth: ∆ for your second point about the person being overscheduled even though I think this can be planned ahead of time if it's part of their job (and there can be more than one person in that area of work doing interviewing). As for your first point, why shouldn't Human Resources just be used for the onboarding/offboarding of employees, managing payroll and sending W-2s? That alone can be a full-time job. Is it really worth the investment if you're losing the potential for higher quality candidates that will improve the growth of your company in the long run? Can't the time sacrifice be considered an investment?" +"CherrySlurpee: Well, first off, no matter what you eat, you're killing something. Plants are living as well. That is how humans have always survived, buy consuming other life. + +Second off, I'm assuming that you mean it's wrong to kill an animal to eat it. It seems like the consuming of the meat isn't the problem, it's ending the life to do so. + +Now, most people would agree that killing other humans to eat them is wrong. Human life is special to most. And everyone agrees that killing plants is alright. So whats the difference? Thought? + +But what about bugs? We stomp on roaches and swat flies. They have thought. + +So when you step back and look at it, it's less of a cut and dry situation and more of a greyscale. We all have a cut off level of intelligence - below that we don't value the life of. And chickens are pretty low on that scale. Turkeys are pretty low on that scale. +tralfamadorian8: ∆ + +This is late, but after considering my view before this and after, I think you did at least alter my view since I hadn't realized that regardless of whether or not I eat meat, there will always be some scale or level below which I don't think it's morally wrong to kill animals. Didn't totally change my view, but definitely altered it." +"RandomhouseMD: One thing has to do with how feasible/expensive it is to get live shots. Because the phone has a shiny glass face on it, phones tend to look washed out when using actual shots. There are other reasons that are less legit (not having the damn thing working at the time of shooting being one of them), or downright disingenuous (showing screens that just look 100% better than reality), but getting a phone to look good on camera is a difficult task. +Anon_Guy1985: &#8710; + +While I understand it is expensive / difficult, maybe there needs to be additional clarification on how the images are simulated. As I feel based on the way these products are advertised (especially in my LG G3 example), it definitely looks like these photos are enhanced. + +EDIT: I'm going to award you with an overall delta, because at the end of the day, I did not consider the filming difficulties and it definitely should be considered when reading the ""Screen Images Simulated"" I still feel that the manufacturer enhances the image. However, I do retract my overall feeling of ""false advertising."" " +"Joined_Today: Don't attach rainbows and lisps with gays. These attributes aren't exclusive to gays. A lot of gays are nothing like that. A gay person acting like a fool should disgust you no more than a straight person acting like a fool. They are both fools. A straight man walking around in leather, acting like a girl, talking with a lisp and liking rainbows would be just as annoying. It's not the sexual orientation, it's the action, and not liking an action is completely normal. Just understand that these people enjoy these actions, and what other people enjoy may not be what you enjoy. Take anything you do, and ask yourself if 100% of people on earth would not see you as a fool for doing it. Somebody will, and that is because everyone has opinions. + +Don't hate people for the way they act, there's no point. What you see as ""acting like a fool"" may be totally different for someone else, and what you do may be seen as ""acting like a fool."" Just live and let live. +olkjas: &#8710; I feel like I may have been a bit blinded by media and personal anecdotes in associating that kind of behavior exclusively with gays. It is like how I am equally irritated by both ghetto black and white people. It isn't because the person is that race that I dislike them, it is how they act. If a straight person acted flamboyantly, I would be just as annoyed and predisposed to dislike them. Sorry for rambling." +"[deleted]: Disclaimer: I've done about 10 minutes of research on this guy and these paintings, so anything I have to say about it should be taken with a grain of salt. + +I think the whole point of these kinds of paintings is that he was trying to redefine how a viewer actually interacts with art. His paintings are technically valuable. They focus intensely on color, shape, scale, balance, composition, depth and detail. To put it simply, they're painted well (in the way artists are expected to paint), but you're right- to some extent, it's devoid of communicative purpose. They're empty. I think the expectation then is that a viewer would look at the painting, and fill in those gaps themselves. It almost brings in the viewer as a complementary artist, as they can fill in the gaps intentionally left open by the artist. + +From doing some research, I find some familiarity- he was heavily influenced by Nietzsche. His painting style then starts to make some sense. Nietzsche was interested in both the simultaneous power and emptiness of the human spirit- man, according to Nietzsche, has had its spirit subjugated through cultural forces, and he was interested in reinvigorating that spirit. But this means a person becoming their own being, not becoming something that Nietzsche tells them to be. Does that make sense? An Ubermensch is someone who has power over his own spirit, and isn't bound by the influences of anyone else. + +I think this artist was trying to paint something that had all the technical value of a painting, but wanted to leave it empty of any culture, message, or meaning. He's not interested in telling people the meaning of something, he's interested in forcing the spirit to acknowledge nothingness and fill in the gaps with its own being. + +This is all very abstract, but think what happens when you look at the painting. Your first reaction is to try and understand, why? Why did he paint this? What's he trying to say? What's the point? I think the artist wants you to reach the conclusion that he didn't have a message to send you. But we as human beings seek meaning in our experiences, so now the internal push we feel is us trying to fill in the gaps with our own meaning and understanding. + +Ever hear a description of silence being loud? This is because silence forces us to acknowledge that silence, and that can be a really uncomfortable, but enlightening, experience. I think this is similar- it's forcing us to acknowledge the silence of the painting, which makes us uncomfortable the same way silence does. + +Edit: There's a really great Nietzsche quote that summarizes these paintings: ""When you look long enough into the void, the void begins to look back through you."" The artist is confronting us with a void- and at some point, that void starts to stare back into us as well. +Mainstay17: ∆ + +My original reply to this seems to have disappeared, which is odd, but this has indeed changed my view on the subject. Thank you for your input. + +RFE: Clarification." +"Mlahk7: Well I can think of a couple of situations where your tattoo could hurt your chances for employment if it is particularly offensive or obscene. + +For one, you sometimes get job offers at weird places. For instance I met a member of an accounting firm (I'm an accounting major) at a baseball game and got offered an interview. There was also a ""meet the firms"" night at a restaurant near campus that I accidentally stumbled upon and met many job prospects there. +Also, during my internship, we participated in some outdoor activities after work, like playing kickball with the employees, which helped you meet other people at your firm and helped make a good impression. + +My point is that you can't always rely on covering up a tattoo because sometimes you run into job opportunities or situations unexpectedly. Of course this only really applies if your tattoo is obscene or offensive, because most employers could care less if you have a tattoo as long as it isn't like, on your face or something. +Ktrayne: ∆ to you because I didn't consider the fact that besides the interview process there are other places I would meet an employer prior to being employed. I suppose I wouldn't be able to cover up the tattoo in all instances. " +"bytor99: >My experience has been limited to the tech sector + +This is why. Most people who are complaining about failing to find jobs go for things they love, yet struggle to find jobs for it. + +So, for example, Philosophy has a 9.3% unemployment rate, while Chemical Engineering has a 2.2% unemployment rate [(source)](http://www.studentsreview.com/unemployment_by_major.php3?sort=Rate). + +Unfortunately, what someone *wants* to do and what is economically useful doesn't always line up. There are more philosophy majors than there are jobs for philosophy. Most businesses aren't too excited about hiring philosophy majors. Yet, for more tech-oriented fields, the demand has never been higher. And when we look as a whole, rather than just at one field, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that *48% of college grads are in jobs that don't use their degree!* [(source)](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/05/28/half-of-college-grads-are-working-jobs-that-dont-require-a-degree/) + +So, with regards to tech fields, you may be right, but for ALL college graduates, because too many of them go into fields with a very low demand, they have a very hard time finding a good job. +not_that_abused: I don't disagree with you, but I have some issues with complaining about being unemployed while pursuing a field with high unemployment. If someone has a dream and wants to pursue it full time, I am happy for that person. However, dreams must be put in realistic terms. That is to say, someone who wants to study philosophy should be aware that the positions are limited and adjust their expectations accordingly. This is where I see pragmatism meeting idealism. Just like if someone wants to be an actor in Hollywood, spending ten years waiting for it to work out is not unexpected. + +I feel like there are many paths to success, and not all of them involve chasing your dream directly. Learning life skills through pursuing a career in one field can give you the ability and the capital to succeed in another field later on. What I hate is the idea of wasted potential, where people pursue very limited opportunities unsuccessfully for long periods and waste opportunities for growth in other ways. There are stigmas to getting a job outside of one's dream path, but having money and learning skills for success can create a foundation later on if the initial attempts at one's dream do not work out." +"CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH: First off I have to admit that I have a huge bias. I am far better at tests than I am at projects. + +But the reason for this is that I have the exact opposite reaction to these types of things. I am never stressed in a test, but often get extremely anxious and extremely stressed over projects. In these projects I often don't preform to my top measure because of this stress, but during a test I do preform my best. + +Now I'd also argue that most jobs are more test based. Other than engineering you usually have to do a lot of work on the spot. Being able to think quickly and memorizing material is important for when you are interacting with clients or customers. + +Personally I think both are important but most people seem to be good at one or the other. Because of this I think that it would be best to give students to option to either do a project or a test. +timpinen: &#8710; +I am a physicist/mathematician, so that is part of my own bias; I spend many months by myself thinking of strange problems with minimal interaction with people, working in my own environment; therefore, my job is not test based in the least. I agree that it is important to think quick on your feet, and acknowledge that memorization is important, but I feel that there is too much emphasis on memorization. I agree that there should be some form of tests, but I guess I am rather against the current system of having a single exam worth 90% of your mark. I am not necessarily against tests, but rather how they are administered. I believe courses should have emphasis on learning the information and applying it; though I do agree a choice would be beneficial." +"294116002: I'll agree that if you are unsure of your own self control and/or have an addictive personality, drinking (at any point in your life, really) is a bad idea. If, however, you are truly confident in your ability to stop when you've had enough and not drive if you've had any (neither of these things are particularly difficult), what's the problem? When I was in highschool, I drank with my group of friends but we never left my house and never did anything that could be potentially dangerous. +cstarr78: Those are all good points. I *am* confident in my self-control. However, what made the experiences fun? More fun than anything you could do while sober? What made drinking worth it to you?" +"ACTUAL_TIME_TRAVELER: Well, it depends on how much you're looking into. If you're just checking what their favorite movies or bands are, that's fine, but if you're digging into their deep past for no real reason, that gets kinda creepy. + +It's kinda like this: Say someone new just moved in down the street. You didn't really get to know them when you first met, but they seemed nice enough. You tell them that they should come visit again sometime so you can get a better chance to know them. It's all going well until a few days later, when you catch them digging through your trash in the middle of the night. When you confront them about it, they tell you that they're just trying to get to know you better. And while, fine, alright, you could probably learn things about someone from their trash, it gives you nowhere near the full picture, and also breaks about a thousand social boundaries. + +Going deep into someones Facebook history is the same way. You go back four, five years, and it's littered with the old, accumulated trash of who they used to be. It's not giving you an accurate picture of who they are now, and its probably not what they want you to see. I know I probably have plenty of things buried in my profile I'd prefer STAY buried, but I haven't deleted them because A) That's who I was, and I don't really feel the need to censor that, and B) I'm not expecting people to go rummaging through there and using it to base their opinions on me. Because if they did, well, it'd be kinda creepy. +TooLazyToRepost: At first read-through I really liked you trash example. I think it works really well at the concepts of what would be wrong about it, but I'm still not wholly convinced. + +You did change my perspective a little bit, since I realize I'd be really creeped out. But I tend to agree with /u/JillyPolla. + +I give consent to my FB friends, I don't give consent to my neighbors. If I had told my neighbor to come over, even when I wasn't there, I'd kind of be asking for something uncomfortable to happen." +"Riktrat: Youre presuming that among the ten poor people there exists 6 who dont think they'll be the rich man someday. If the social ideal is, as Mitt Romney said, ""we exist as a society of haves and soon to haves"" the poor will vote to protect the sanctity of the rich. +hellohellizreal: Thanks, you changed part of my view: the explanation i gave does not take into account the fact that people might not remain poor. ∆ + +However, most people know it is unlikely for them to grow multimillionaire. I think my reasoning is valid to some extent: if 50% of the population think they won't be millionaires, they benefit from taxation on millionaires + +" +"scottevil110: I am saying this as both a climate scientist and a person who lives on this planet: + +Go ahead and have kids. Yes, the climate is very much warming up, and yes, it's going to become more and more difficult to adapt, but humanity finds a way. The average temperature of the planet will rise several degrees. Sea levels will rise. Some places will be inundated, but humanity will survive it. + +Climate change will not kill people. It will make it more difficult for them to thrive, but most societies are already living well beyond what's necessary to stay alive. If resources become scarce, then societies will scale back before they simply start dying. + +And, yes, this sounds a little self-centered, but if you're able to read the IPCC report, then you live in a place that's going to do okay in a new climate. You live in a place with the resources to adapt. Changes to infrastructure can help to mitigate the effects of anything you're going to see over the next few generations. Rising sea levels can be dealt with by building better water management systems or simply living somewhere inland (I live 200 miles from the coast, I honestly couldn't care less how much the sea level rises, because it isn't coming up here). + +Most of the world outside of the polar regions will see more extreme weather more frequently, but it isn't something that will kill people en masse. + +Yes, life is going to require some changes, but you need not worry about the planet becoming uninhabitable within the next century. + +I realize that all that is pretty vague, but I'd be more than happy to address any specific concerns that you have. +hillofthorn: First off, thanks for your response. + +Asking you as a climate scientist, are claims that this planet is on the verge of another mass extinction event hyperbolic? + +Regarding sea levels: Would sea levels rising be the end of it? Even in North America, harsher winters and hotter summers, and the corresponding affects on food and water supplies, won't just harm folks on the coast. + +Then there's political concerns. Humans have a way of surviving in scarcity by hoarding from other humans. For instance, if there's a famine in Mexico, does the US send limited food supplies to that country to prevent a refugee crisis? I admit it's speculative, but I'm concerned that simply saying ""we'll adapt"" doesn't take into account that ""adaptation"" won't simply be about changing lifestyles around, but will in fact be about guaranteeing survival for some at the direct expense of others. +" +"EpicZiggles: I would say there's too many variables at play to designate one type of person as normal as then too many people are outliers. + +Take, for example, ethnicity. While the largest ethnicity group is Chinese, there are more non-Chinese as a whole, so how can an overall (in the scale of the global population) minority be considered 'normal'? + +Then, when you add in other factors, gender, handedness, hair colour, eye colour etc. There actually very few 'normal' people which pretty much defeats the purpose. +CurryThighs: I'm not arguing that there are 'Normal' people, I'm arguing that there are 'Normal' states. I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone that is 'Normal' in EVERY variable, as you said! We agree there! + +Also, you CMV'd me with the second paragraph. I hadn't thought of it that way. Here you go ∆" +"TryUsingScience: Rudeness is always bad. That out of the way, I am offended if my very Christian friends *don't* try to convert me at least once. + +Look at it this way. These people believe that nonbelievers will be tortured forever. I don't believe it and you don't and we could spend all day circlejerking about how it's stupid, but that is their genuine belief. If someone believes that I am going to be tortured forever, and they call myself my friend, how could they *not* try to save me? + +If you saw someone about to walk into the path of an eighteen wheeler, wouldn't you yell, ""Hey stop!"" You might decide they're making a conscious choice and respect it and not physically drag them back. But you're almost certainly going to check that it *is* a conscious choice, not a moment of thoughtlessness that could cost them everything. + +That's what (some) proselytizing is. It's believers yelling, ""Hey stop! Are you sure you want to jump into the fiery flames of damnation? Because there's a better way."" + +Sure, 99% of them ruin it for the rest, but some of them really are genuine. And I respect that, and I'm glad they care enough to try and save me. +Masennus: I'm not offended by the topics themselves. If a friend and I discuss our difference of opinion, I don't consider that proselytization, even if my friend's argument is designed to sway me to his view. So those personal conversations don't really fit my bill. + +I'm talking about the unsolicited variety. Can you offer me anything on that, or should I just continue to hate away at these zealots?" +"Glory2Hypnotoad: Those put on trial at Nuremberg were not rank and file soldiers; they were high-ranking officers. At that level, they were the ones giving the orders. No one was press-ganged into high-ranking positions in the SS. It was a largely volunteer force that that always had its pick of the most fanatical recruits. No one on trial at Nuremberg held the rank they held against their will. +ghroat: so if Hitler ordered them to do something, and they did not follow orders, what would happen? would they not have been punished? their defense was that they were ""just following orders"" so what happens when you don't follow orders in a military regime? + +genuine questions" +"huadpe: Do you have examples of immigrants who willfully choose not to learn the language, or people who advocate against learning the language? There are enormous personal incentives for immigrants to learn the language of the country they move to, as well as often legal incentives (with some level of fluency often being mandatory for naturalization). + +It feels like you're arguing against a straw man here. +theviridiansky: Mostly because there's a large number of Chinese immigrants in my city who refuse to learn the language because well, it's a majority Chinese area and they have 'no need to'. A large number of stores (many of which are *not* speciality Chinese stores) have Chinese-only signs and even those that include English signs have storekeepers that barely can speak English at all. My generation goes to school and speaks English so it isn't a problem, but it is a major problem with the older generations." +"Buffalo__Buffalo: Any RPG worth its salt is a story wrapped in a game (or maybe if it's Final Fantasy 7 then it's three or so stories all awkwardly crammed in together). + +Sure the fighting is important, as are the graphics and the music etc., but what really counts is the story. If you want a game which is just about the battles you have FPS and strategy games. + +If you're finding the RPG interesting but the battles unnecessarily drawn out and tedious then adjusting the game to suit your tastes so that you get the most out of what is essentially an interactive story isn't something to feel guilty about. Like any game, the most important part of it is the enjoyment you get from it - be it grinding for hours on end, blasting through and skipping all the sidequests, or anything in between. + +You aren't a professional gamer. Enjoy your games in the *way* you prefer them. It's not about measuring up or impressing anyone, it's about how much fun you have. + +*edited a word in* +garnteller: You're right, there is a lot of effort that goes into the story and environmentals, independent of the combat side, especially on these really-plot driven ones. + +I do see your point about enjoying them how I enjoy them - and that's easier with, say, Halo, where I know I don't have the reflexes (or eyesight) to play it well. I think my frustration with these RPGs is knowing that I *could* play them ""correctly"" but don't want to put in the effort. + +But you (and the others) are right - I'm playing for me, so whatever maximizes my enjoyment is the important thing. ∆" +"[deleted]: You have every right to compare yourself to others, it's what we do. But however, it's sometimes wrong to compare ourselves to others in ways we know would not help us gain any insight about ourselves or learn anything. For example, I have an extreme dislike for anyone who compares me to my brother by pointing out my failings and glorifies his successes. This would be an unproductive thing because this fosters resentment and agitation for one thing. It wouldn't help me with my relationship to my brother, it would only damage it. + +And seeing to compare yourself to find where you are is tantamount to asking people what they think of you. You know you at your most intimate and deepest level, through you conscious and experiences. If I have a 100K Salary and work at the 99th Floor at a Fortune 500 Company, I don't need to compare myself to Bob in Accounting to know where I am in the Company. + +I don't seek to compare myself to others all the time, except if I have good reason to do so. And comparing oneself to another can often times lead to judgement which may hinder your comparison. If so, I would compare myself many times to the ""Popular"" kids at school and wonder why I'm not so popular. I have good looks, get good grades, pretty sociable so where am I failing? But alas, I'm my own person. To try to compare my failings to the success of another would be ill advised because truly, everyone is their own person. + +So it's good to compare ourselves OP when we know we have reason to do it, but bad taste to do so all the time without consideration for oneself. +YogiAlex: I agree that everyone is their own person but I think we use this as an excuse to be okay with our shortcomings. What if I just compared myself in music? I think it is important to be better than other people because this is how everyone else sees us." +"incruente: > I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help. Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week. I cannot forget about them easily. Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly. + +Having watched them, what have you done to help that you would not otherwise have done? Also, what more do you think can be done that is not already being done? Wars on such groups aren't like wars on countries. You can't just hit them and call it a day. It's a war on extremism, ideologies, and perversions of cultures. There is no specific ethnic group you can reasonably target (since these things span many such groups but encompass none of them entirely), no region you can unreservedly attack. Saying we should get people to do more sort of implies there's something else to do. +IceFieldsOfHyperion: Personally I donate to charities. Specifically ones who are involved with helping refugees. This gives some people a viable places to run to a possible way out. + +I may not have have done this otherwise. Without seeing really disturbing things it is quite easy to forget about something. Even if reading an article about it I make a mental note to donate I may forget about it during the day. Having watched footage that has deeply effected me I'm thinking about these people for longer an thus more likely to make a donation. Granted it is a small change but at least I am contributing a little." +"n_5: You have to remember that Pao is human too. Dealing with that kind of inhuman harassment is incredibly stressful and debilitating, and I can't blame her for stepping down. She's probably realized that being CEO of Reddit is not worth the absurd amount of strife she's faced from users who are, quite frankly, shitheads, but users who make up a vocal percentage of the userbase and users who have been relentlessly going after her (and, of course, many of these users are powerful enough with computers to make her life a never-ending nightmare). It's like the GamerGate victims: many of them shouldn't have ""given in"" to the angry hords of numbskulls, but personal feelings of well-being can often trump standing up against the shittiness of facing a crowd you'll never win over. +teleekom: This I can absolutely understand, but I just don't like this trend I'm seeing. It's not so long ago when all the Tim Hunt controversy happened when he was forced to quit his position for the twitter mob only to be revealed that it was all load of bullshit. I absolutely get that it might not be worth it to be constantly harassed, but this is scary precedent to hold. I just think people should stick to their guns, eventually things have to turn one way or another. Maybe staying out of comment sections could be some sort of solution, but that would probably be hard to do as reddit's CEO. + +" +"skittlemonger: This only works if it's me and my SO who make this decision and nobody else, because we're only two people. It's statistically no different from saying ""my vote doesn't count, because I'm only one person"". It's true. The problem occurs when *lots* of people think the same thing. If lots of couples adopt your logic, suddenly loads of people will stop voting in pairs, and both main parties will lose large numbers of votes. This means that minor parties will be proportionally overrepresented. +DBerwick: > This means that minor parties will be proportionally overrepresented. + +Not that the US couldn't stand for a bit of that, but the part about voting third party was on the condition that you (like many Americans) vote major party because of the spoiler effect; you and your partner can now vote for the party you most prefer without succumbing to said effect. + +if you genuinely support one of the major parties as ideal, then that point holds a bit more credence, but so long as the distinction between 'major party' and 'third party' has reason to exist, the over-representation of third parties is a drop in a bucket." +"huadpe: Many if not most Uber cars do follow them, being licensed as for hire vehicles but not allowed to take street hails. + +But Uber does not follow the one regulation which matters, and they shouldn't have to: the medallion system. + +New York City has set an arbitrary cap on the number of for hire vehicles which can pick people up off the street. This cap does nothing except produce economic rents for those who own medallions, and is fundamentally unfair. + +Vehicles which have passed safety inspections, have licensed drivers, and have accurate fare systems should be allowed to pick up passengers. Right now they are not unless they have a special permit from the government that you can't get because they stopped issuing new ones in the 30s. + +The medallion system is stupid and Uber is morally right to flout it. It should be repealed, and any vehicle meeting health and safety rules allowed to ply the streets for fares. +awesomeosprey: > The medallion system is stupid... + + +OK, fine, I disagree with you but you are entitled to your opinion and the rightness or wrongness of any specific regulation is deliberately outside the scope of this CMV. + + +> ...and Uber is morally right to flout it. + + +This is where I disagree strongly. + + +If people (and/or companies) felt free to ignore laws they did not like, that would be essentially the same as not having laws. Civil disobedience in human rights matters is is categorically different from a corporation willfully defying a duly-passed law, whose only effect ultimately would be to cut into its profits a bit. What if a pharmaceutical company decided that FDA regulations are unduly onerous, and starting distributing untested drugs through an app? " +"DHCKris: What about this: seeing women in these portrayals and not having as many positive female role models makes your girlfriend upset. Presumably, because feminism is a thing, it makes *many* people upset. Sadness is a bad thing, so something that makes a lot of people sad has a negative effect on society, even if it's a small one. It reflects ideas and values (no one, as far as I can tell, is claiming it creates them) that are upsetting at best and offensive at worst. Causing these emotions negatively affects a part of society. +LeonTheSexCoach: Ahh, yes I did not view it in that regard. ∆ Of course making people sad is certainly a negative effect, but wasn't really what I was looking for. The argument behind stereotypical portrayals of women in video games (according to my girlfriend) is that contributes to the idea that men are in power, and thus directly influences societal problems that affect women due to a patriarchal system. I'm wondering if there is any evidence that there is a link between these portrayals of women and real societal problems (e.g. Gender wage gap, underrepresentation of women in STEM fields) or if this is only seen as a problem ""because it hurts peoples' feelings"". " +"Crayshack: I am also enjoy fanfiction, but it is not a guilty pleasure for me. It is a way to explore the characters and the story in depth in a way that no writer has the time to in a normal story. Because I already know the way the original story went, exposition for the world where the story takes place is not necessary, and the writer of the fanfiction can focus entirely on exploring a character's motivations, or the interactions between two characters that got little screen time together int he original. + +Then there are also the stories that ask ""But what if this had happened?"" Even for a basic story, there can be thousands of scenarios that a fan of the work can come up with and explore, some of which turn out to be very interesting reads. I am also a fan of crossover fanfiction, where the possibilities are almost endless of characters from various works of fiction meeting under a myriad of circumstances and the events that can play out. + +Yes the vast majority of fanfiction you will find is not very high quality, but if you search hard enough you will find many stories that are just as good if not better than the original. There are a few works of fiction that I only started reading/watching because I enjoyed a few fanfiction stories that used characters or setting from them and I decided to go to the source. In at least one case, I was extremely disappointed with the original material as compared to what some people had done with it in fanfiction. +changemyromance: > I am also enjoy fanfiction, but it is not a guilty pleasure for me. It is a way to explore the characters and the story in depth in a way that no writer has the time to in a normal story. Because I already know the way the original story went, exposition for the world where the story takes place is not necessary, and the writer of the fanfiction can focus entirely on exploring a character's motivations, or the interactions between two characters that got little screen time together int he original. + +This helps me to understand why I enjoy the fanfiction I do, although it does not affect my view that it is distinctly a bad/shameful thing. For that, I award one &#8710; to /u/Crayshack. Thank you. + +I can see that there are certain kinds of fanfiction that would not be inherently shameful (""What if the fake-Voyager crew had made it back to earth?"", for example, if you get that reference). However, I view the exploration of other things as inherently shameful. To offer a more vague example, say Characters A and B had a hinted romance, but later in the canon, it is explicitly shown that Characters A and C share a long-term romance together. It is strange for me to then experience: 1. Disappointment at Characters A and B not having a similar romance, 2. The desire to search out fanfiction where Characters A and B pursue a similar romance, because as delineated by the canon, clearly Character A and B do not have romantic involvement. + +Overall, I do not like these feelings. I am constantly at odds with myself to either accept or rid myself of them...and ridding myself of them has not seemed to do much for me." +"RickAstleyletmedown: I eat meat and care very much for morality. I was a vegetarian for many years for the usual reasons: not approving of the horrible ways the animals are often treated in industrial meat production, wanting to avoid the environmental impact of industrial farming, etc. + +Although there were other factors involved as well, I started eating meat again because I accepted that: + +1) By choosing to eat meat that is hunted by myself or someone I know, raised by someone I know, or raised free-range on grass from a company I trust, I take ownership of how the animal is being treated and help create a market for ethically-raised meat. + +2) Many of the protein alternatives that vegetarians consume are actually as destructive to the environment as ethically-raised meat or worse. Soy production, for example, is extremely problematic. + +So, yes, I care very much, but came to the conclusion that becoming a total vegetarian was not necessary within my morals. +shayzfordays: >1) By choosing to eat meat that is hunted by myself or someone I know, raised by someone I know, or raised free-range on grass from a company I trust, I take ownership of how the animal is being treated and help create a market for ethically-raised meat. + +But you're still killing for no reason arent you? + +>2) Many of the protein alternatives that vegetarians consume are actually as destructive to the environment as ethically-raised meat or worse. Soy production, for example, is extremely problematic. + +Beans? Nuts? Grains? Whats wrong with soy production anyway?" +"jmsolerm: > They can not reproduce and some I know don't even care for that fact. + +Are sterile and those who just have decided not to have children a cancer, too? + +Homosexuals can in fact reproduce, and many do gamete donations. Gay women can get a sperm donation, and gay men a surrogate mother. Slightly worse IMHO than getting a unique zygote with chromosomes from both parents and using an artificial womb, but that's my opinion. + +> Summary, if you can't contribute to future generations + +Who says they can't? If the only way to contribute was to have more children, it'd be pretty disastrous. + +> why are you allowed to fool around influencing them and destroying morals because you ""only live once"". + +What morals do you mean? Also, you're wrong on the ""motivations"". Homosexual people can go with their lives in almost the same way heterosexual people do, just dating/marrying with someone of their same sex. +Bomboozled: You make some good points, which is what this is about. Can you answer what the kids turn out like seeing only one gender at home? I mean without the father to explain to the son, or the mother to explain to the daughter... I just am not that positive. Mind you yes, a LOT I learned wasn't specifically from my dad or step dad. More from my brother and a little from my friends. " +"RustyRook: The short answer: Be selective about who you talk with about controversial topics. + +Some of your closer friends are probably already aware that you don't share their political views. So choose the ones among them who you think you could have a conversation with and roll with it. If you're sure you do want to discuss it it's a good idea to lay the groundwork and then talk about it in person. I've seen many facebook conversations that get very heated and completely unreasonable when controversial topics are discussed. Discussing it in person gets ideas across very well because tone and body language can be used to guide the direction of the conversation, which is often impossible on facebook. +SwordWolf: ∆ Thanks! I think this is the best way to approach it. Body language bit is especially good." +"dtiftw: What do you define as a ""GMO"" that needs to be labeled, and what information would you like to see on the label? + +Secondly, what testing would you like to see that isn't currently being done? + +And I will challenge specifically the idea that anyone has said that GMOs are ""completely safe"" or that we should accept them ""no questions asked."" I can't think of any organization, company, or scientist who has made those claims. +MagicSpaceMan: I did a bit of research and found this page: +http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.UlQecCRJNOE +which pretty much changes my view on it's own, but since I went looking because of your comment, I'll give it a ∆" +"DHCKris: Sex is an act partaken by two (or more) human adults fully capable of making their own decisions and taking their own risks. It is not immoral to mutually decide to participate in a natural function of the body with another individual in a non-physically harmful way. + +Even though you don't personally understand how people can feel that way about sex, the fact is that people DO feel that way, and you should not label their activities and feelings as immoral simply because you don't understand them. +allissasquestions: Thank you for your comment.. I agree that it's not fair to label it way, but I have difficulty agreeing that it isn't immoral. The problem is I can't understand how people can view it the way you do. I don't see how casual sex, for example, can be beneficial and not just unhealthy. Maybe that's a question of how much intimacy is involved? +∆" +"cde458: By leader do you only the president or prime minister should possess this privilege. If so, we are dealing with a very small sample size so we have to be willing to accept that there aren't many examples. + +> The threat of prosecution undermines peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power between political adversaries is the defining feature of a democracy governed by the rule of law. + +Depends on the system in place. In the US the prosecution of presidents would lead to the same party maintaining power. So it wouldn't necessarily have to transfer between adversaries. + + +> Egypt's recent history is indicative of this to me. + +Egypt wasn't exactly stable to begin with. +huadpe: >By leader do you only the president or prime minister should possess this privilege. If so, we are dealing with a very small sample size so we have to be willing to accept that there aren't many examples. + +I would say any elected official acting in an executive capacity. Not sure how I feel about cabinet ministers in a parliamentary system. + +I agree we have a small sample size to work with for examples. + +>Depends on the system in place. In the US the prosecution of presidents would lead to the same party maintaining power. So it wouldn't necessarily have to transfer between adversaries. + +A one party state is not a democracy. That's exactly the sort of result I'm worried about. If you can't transition to another party, you don't have democracy. Power *has* to be able to transfer to an adversary to be meaningful. + +>Egypt wasn't exactly stable to begin with. + +They were stable, but undemocratic. Their experiment with democracy failed I think in part due to the prosecutions of Mubarak and Morsi. Now they're back to military rule." +"A_Mirror: >I believe that a woman will never be able to go topless without causing a stir unless women's boobs, and more importantly, their nipples are no longer considered objects of sex + +What better way to accomplish this than by de-sexualizing them via not censoring them anymore? If women everywhere in the US (And I say US because in a large number of other countries in the world women going topless is fairly normal and non-controversial) started going topless it would become normal. People would just get used to it. +keanex: That's a good point that you make, but I don't think that the women should make their stands in public streets where even men don't regularly go topless. If you want to make a stand then why not do it at a place where it's common to go topless?" +"carasci: A big reason the situation in the US has gotten to where it has is not simply the existence of for-profit (private) prisons, it's the lobbying power they wield. Why do they wield that power? Because there are many of them, they are large, and they have lots and lots of money. + +It's perfectly possible that there's nothing wrong with the existing private prisons in the UK, at least not today. However, the moment they see an opportunity, or the moment they become prevalent enough that simply returning them (*all* of them, at once) to public management on a relative moment's notice becomes impossible, it's quite literally their *job* to milk that opportunity for all it's worth. When that happens, suddenly you start seeing regulatory ""reforms"" that look a lot like lowered standards, rating systems start to disappear or become stratified, and standards start to drift between public and private prisons....all things that, incidentally, seem to increase profitability while making it more and more costly and difficult to reinstate public control. + +It's sort of like keeping an aggressive baby bear in your house on a dog leash. Sure, it's safe so long as it stays the size it is and you don't get too close, noting to worry about really. The moment it gets big enough to break the leash, though, or the moment you let your guard down when feeding it, it's going to take a chunk out of you with no hesitation whatsoever. There are some cases where that kind of thing isn't a huge problem, because the stakes or consequences are relatively low. However, prisons, policing, and a number of other government areas are government areas in part because they *aren't* such cases. +Arryk: Normally I'm not amenable to slippery slope arguments but I do see that in this case any progress down this slope would be irreversible. &#8710;" +"cwenham: Consider the Panopticon: + +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon + +It's based on a reliable observation about human behavior: that we act differently when we think we're being watched, even if we aren't. A dummy camera can often be equally effective as a real one. + +People restrain themselves when they think they're being watched, but the problem is that it's their own imagination of what the spy will do which governs their behavior. + +There is no policeman as effective as the one inside our own minds. +Dooey: I won't say that this has changed my view, but it has made me waver a little, so I'll give you a ∆. + +BUT: I think that the reason people retrain themselves when they are getting watched is because they would otherwise do something that they believe is wrong. This leads to 5 possibilities that I can see: + +1. They believe they would do something wrong, and they are correct. In this case, I think the spying was a good thing: it prevented a crime! + +2. They believe they would do something wrong, but it is not actually wrong. Although this is unfortunate, I think that this attitude will be common in the long run. I believe that eventually, what people believe to be wrong and what is wrong will be the same thing. + +3. They believe that what they would do is not wrong, but they still don't want other people seeing it. This applies to things like having sex. I think that having a person that has never interacted with you and never will interact with you see you have sex is not a bad thing, and I think that any discomfort from that would disappear once people learn that no one of importance to them will ever see the footage. + +4. Not they think that they are doing something wrong, but they think they are being evaluated. Again, I think that once they realize they are not being evaluated, they will return to their original behaviour. + +Also: even if people do change their behaviour because they are being watched, this does not mean they are no longer free to do something that they would be free to do if they weren't being watched. I do think that it's very close to having their freedom restricted, which is why I gave you the delta, but my view is not completely changed yet." +"scottevil110: From the perspective of climate change, you're largely correct. The meat industry is a *massive* contributor to greenhouse gases, and science backs you up on that. Granted, some meats are far better than others. The ""chicken industry"" for example is far less impactful than the beef industry, and fishing is mostly inconsequential as far as environmental impact if you don't accidentally fish something into extinction. + +From a suffering standpoint, though, this is where I try to remember that just because we're cognizant doesn't mean we aren't animals. We're not somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. We evolved just like everything else did, and we evolved to be omnivores. We have our place in the food chain just as every other animal does, and ecology has adapted to the fact that we DO eat meat. Just as a certain ecosystem relies on lions killing a certain number of gazelles for ecological balance, so has the system adapted to the fact that we're part of that. Raising animals for food is a different story, but as far as hunting, fishing, and scavenging, we're just another animal. +Rachm0on: Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument but are there two prongs: that it might lead to ecosystem collapse, and that we have also evolved to eat meat just as any another animal? +I'm afraid I cant satisfactorily answer the first point; I would either hope that the ecosystem adapts after a bit or that our contribution is not sufficiently dreadful to completely destroy the eco-chain...excellent point though. Equally I wonder what your objection would be to an ecosystem collapse (bad ramifications leading to suffering?). If it is a concern that ultimately is a moral, suffering argument, I would hope that the prevention of hunting would outweigh the collapse in terms of pain, but it would be hard to be sure. (sorry if I've completely skewed the argument!) +As for the second point, just because we are animals does not mean we cannot raise ourselves above them. Simply because it is natural, to my mind, does not mean it is morally correct. Animals brutally gore competitors to death, I hope this does not mean it is fine to repeatedly spear a suitor of my girlfriend..." +"vl99: Literally no one is going to disagree that programs that give people jobs will be better at finding people jobs than programs which don't focus on finding people jobs. It's a tautology. The reason we have safety net programs is because we want the right people in the right jobs. + +The types of jobs that publicize position vacancies to programs that focus on job placement are usually minimum wage and temp positions, bottom of the barrel type jobs where the employer isn't concerned so much with finding the right person for the position as a body to fill a hole. + +If an accomplished accountant has a really unfortunate layoff when his company goes belly up, and can't find a comparable job for some time, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to give him a little cash to hold him over until he does find an equivalent position than to place him in meal assembly at Burger King where his skills will be completely wasted. + +Also, if safety net programs were defunded to provide for job placement and education programs, what would the really unfortunate people who don't have a cent to there name do to feed and house themselves and their families while attending daily classes or waiting for job placement? +red62_dank_memer: I see what you are saying with your first three paragraphs, and agree with you ∆. I am going to attempt to reply to your fourth one. + +That is why I said certain welfare programs, and not all welfare programs, because someone is obviously going to need assistance with food and shelter while they are being trained or the like" +"sheep74: I'm not American but I would just like something cleared up; + +Isn't freedom of speech the ability to convey ideas and opinions freely? so the thing itself doesn't cover things like lying. You don't have complete freedom in misrepresenting information (lying) but you have the right to believe and express your beliefs freely? + +You seem to be confusing two things; freedom of speech as a thing, and the ability to say whatever you want. They're not the same thing. No, you shouldn't be able to say whatever you want because then yes, banks can lie to you. But you should have complete freedom of speech. +fur_tea_tree: I'm not American either. I suppose I was making an argument based on past smaller arguments with people who wouldn't budge on the definition of free and continually refused to accept that it didn't mean they could say whatever they wanted. + +I think my original view then was that this was how people saw the definition of freedom of speech, but I suppose it was just a few individuals. + +So although my view on the definition of freedom of speech hasn't been changed as it pretty much lines up with what you and others were saying, I suppose that my view on other peoples opinions of it has been changed... if that makes any sense. + +So +1 &#8710; for changing my view of other peoples views on this matter." +"pepsiguy24: If you want to save lives, you can always donate organs that don't involve you dying. Donate a kidney. There are millions of people on kidney waiting lists suffering through dialysis. Donate part of your liver. It regenerates itself over time. Once again there are a ton of people waiting for a liver transplant. The point is you can save lives without giving your own. +0826: Yes, I think this is a big part it. Maybe eventually when I'm older there will be a time where this concept would be more useful. But at the moment I'm young. I can live for quite a long time helping people, and still make sure my organs are put to good use someday. No hurry lol + +I think it would still be beneficial though... just not the *most* beneficial thing one could choose to do, by far. However I think that if I did kill myself (and managed to save a few other people in the process), I still would have accomplished more good than many people have throughout their entire lives." +"Omega037: The United Nations is, foremost, a safe and central place for nations to deliberate, negotiate, and discuss issues between states. It may not solve those issues, but at least provides a platform for people to try. + +In order to make this successful, the UN has tried to be as inclusive as possible. The only way it can have legitimacy as the place for all nations to discuss matters of state is to have nearly universal inclusion regardless of what members do. For example: + +1. Syria was using chemical weapons on its people recently. It is still a member. + +2. North Korea has horrible labor/reeducation camps where children and other family members of ""traitors"" are sent to die. It is still a member. + +3. Rwanda committed genocide of the Tutsi people. It is still a member. + +At many points of time in its history, countries that were actively at war with each other were still at the UN. This might not seem like a big deal, but it really is. During the fiercest, most hated moments of a conflict, the UN still exists as the one place that representatives from both sides are together without arms. +Partha23: Just to clarify, you're saying that the purpose of the United Nations isn't only that of a peacekeeping and humanitarian coalition, but also a tool through which countries, even when at war, can find solutions to international problems and work towards their resolving, correct?" +"eggy_mule: It would probably be more correct to say that religion is an attempt to explain the unknown. + +This would of course include death as well as the huge number of natural occurrences that mankind did not (or still does not) understand. ie causes of natural disasters, evolution, weather etc etc +TheMagBastard: &#8710;= +Valid point. I still believe though, that the fear of death itself is the greatest weakness that religion exploits in establishing itself within a culture." +"Mavericgamer: Addressing ~~a few~~ all: + +Quality: + +Netflix streams in HD when it can. There are current *ahem* issues with certain ISPs in that regard, but for someone like me who needs glasses to see in SD, HD is barely a noticeable improvement to my eyes. As for Audio quality... I've never cared much; Spotify is good enough for background noise. + +Buffering: + +Annoying, but I don't ever deal with it; it's a matter of internet speed and connectivity; it has issues, sure, but it's generally fine. + +""Support the creators"" + +That is why I am using Netflix rather than torrenting; I unfortunately can't afford to buy every single movie I might want to watch; it is similar to renting in that regard; before Netflix we had Blockbuster, and as you might remember before Netflix was a streaming service primarily, its benefit was namely a more convenient way to rent DVDs + +Ads + +This is annoying but also why I don't use Hulu+ + +Physical Niceties: + +I never understood it. I have precious small living space, I'd rather use as much of it for things I actually use (servers, lockpicks, more viewing space) than some little booklet that cost $0.50 to make and adds another $5.00 to the sticker price. + +Selection + +The selection sucks based on quantity, but it is rare for me to run across a movie on netflix that sucked so badly I wanted to just not watch it. Further, it sucks only as a function of how much it has vs every film in existence. It blows my collection of DVDs away, and it stomps the selection of my local theater that has 22 screens playing 8-15 movies. + +Ownership/DRM + +This is the main thing for me: If I like a movie enough to want to own it, I will go buy it after having seen it. As I write this, I'm finishing up The Avengers on Netflix, and I pre-ordered that on DVD. I use Netflix because it is simply more convenient than getting up and finding that DVD. + +But I agree, on principle; DRM for paid content is just annoying. +alexskc95: Streaming in HD isn't going to fix how bitrate starved the thing is. Banding is banding is banding, whether that's 360p banding, 1080p banding, or 8k banding. + +I rarely deal with buffering myself... But yeah. + +I guess I just thought of it as shoddy because I was comparing it to complete-bought-and-payed-for-content. Thinking of it as a rental service, it's solid. + +Have a &#8710;." +"Hq3473: When I buy a new car, it can come with a long LONG warranty. + +This way, I can be sure it keeps me on the road. + +If you buy a used luxury car, god knows what kind of repair you will need. Also, luxury cars are more expensive and more difficult to fix. +BrawndoTTM: ∆ + +Longer available warranty. Didn't think about that. I guess that counts as an advantage so enjoy your delta. I'm not sure if it's enough to get me personally to buy a new car, but it's a definite advantage for a lot of people." +"TheBeatlesLiveOn: It's just not the case that most people know what they want to do in life by the time they graduate high school. If you don't have a profession in mind, how do you advance your education? Say you're good at math, and you enjoy it - exactly the same mindset as someone who would major in math in college now. Which profession's training camp/classes should you go to? And then what if you decided you didn't want to do that profession after all? Wouldn't it be easier if you could just reflect on your strengths and weaknesses and further your education accordingly, rather than being forced into immediately viewing it in the context of a specific job? + +Also, there are the problems of money and practicality. Say I've decided I want to be a Data Analyst and the nearest Data Analyst ""training camp/class"" is thousands of miles away. Would I live at the Data Analyst training camp? Also, there would have to be many more separate facilities spread throughout the country in order for this to work, which essentially means more money and resources funneled into very narrow services. +JustAGreekGuy: Speaking from my experience only, of the graduating class in my school this year, probably 2 or 3 applied to college undecided for every 30 kids, so I just assumed that's what it is like for most schools. + +The second point you made is true though, I didn't consider that. ∆" +"RustyRook: You've formed this view based on less than a quarter of how long you're probably going to live. And you hadn't even reached puberty for at least ten of those years. + +You're likely to be well off, financially. You're recently taken steps to reduce your weight. These are very attractive things, and women do value them very much. + +You really shouldn't let your height (or lack of experience) dictate your views on this /u/ShortieMS1. +ShortieMS1: ∆ Yes I actually think right now I look good. I feel good about my appearance in a way I haven't felt ever before. Yet the evidence is staggering that guys short as me have it very rough. One study found that a 5ft 4 man would need to make 229K more than a 6ft guy to have equal chances (in online dating I grant you). One day I frankly would be able to make that much but med school ,residency ,etc I won't be rolling in it. It would be nice to be with someone who likes me genuinely but I realize my future income and profession are part of me. + +I do think I'm at the age where not having any experience is very very strange." +"hacksoncode: An interesting point about this is that, if it's irrational to view races as having any scientific basis, that doesn't mean that people haven't done a lot of damage in the past by having this incorrect view. + +I.e. If it's true, then all of the racism that has occurred has been *doubly* stupid and unjustified, and it makes sense to level the racist playing field. + +The problem with your view is that irrational people not only exist, they are probably close to a majority. The harm they cause by believing in race is irrational and wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. + +By targeting these programs at the same sort of mistaken categories these irrational people do, we can reverse the harm done by their irrationality. + +Therefore I don't think it's hypocritical, but sometimes it might be considered ironic (in the real sense). +controversialideas: ∆ + +This is a plausible defense of holding both views at once - race as a biological construct does not exist, but racism as a social construct should be compensated." +"[deleted]: The value of faith is inherently going to be tied to what you have faith in and what conclusions you draw from that faith. For instance, you seem to have an enormous amount of faith in inductive reasoning. If pressed, however, I am confident you would not be able to justify why you have faith in inductive reasoning without resorting to more inductive reasoning. Nevertheless you have faith in this form of epistemology. + +Another thing you appear to have faith in is some form of non-relative ethics. You suggest that certain other values are a benefit to those around them. What does it mean to be a benefit to others? Presumably you have something of a fixed understanding of what behaviors are beneficial if you are asserting that there is a positive correlation between value x and benefit y. This is also a based in faith. If pressed you would almost certainly be unable to justify your faith in this specific ethical system without recourse to tautologies. + +Faith is an inevitable part of epistemology. All of our ""rational"" or deductive reasoning rests on the basis of starting assumptions, which at their very core amount to arguments taken on faith. You might imagine you could use something like Occam's Razor to justify having the fewest and least expansive assumptions possible, but essentially there is no way to escape the fact that all of your beliefs are built off of first principles taken on faith. + +PossumMan93: I hope you don't think that I'm arguing that I have never utilized faith throughout my life or even that I don't believe faith exists. You are absolutely right that I utilize faith in inductive reasoning, and it's efficacy and obtaining a desired outcome for myself and others. And you are absolutely right that I have faith in the belief that an ethical system in which ""good actions"" are those that duly benefit those around you, and ""bad actions"" are those that unduly harm those around you. + +But you're not really addressing my concern. I don't believe that faith should be something to strive for. I don't think we should stop at ""I believe that inductive reasoning is the best way to go about solving problems and I don't need any other reasons to believe so"" I think we should be constantly striving to overcome reliance on faith. I don't think faith should be something to be proud of. I am not proud of the fact that faith is the only thing I can use to back up my reliance on inductive reasoning and I don't think anyone should be. I think we should be constantly looking to find a better way to justify it's use (if it's efficacy is not already enough). + +And by the way, my claim that inductive reasoning is the best way to solve problems is not based solely on faith. I'm not just saying ""inductive reasoning is the best way to solve problems because I believe so,"" I'm using verifiable evidence collected throughout my entire life. I reasoned, based on my experiences, that drinking water will quench my thirst feeling whenever I have it. And every time it works. That problem gets solved by inductive reasoning. So I continue to use it. I'm not taking on faith that it works and is useful. I'm using it because it's useful. I'm sure you'll say that I can't know for sure whether it will continue to work, and you're right I can't, but I have *mountains* of evidence that it has worked in the past, *mountains* of evidence that not using it in the past has lead to problems, and doing nothing is not an option, so I'll continue to use it in the future, and if things turn out differently in the future than they have in the past I will alter my views." +"BenIncognito: When African Americans started converting to Islam, there was a strong anti-establishment sentiment among those who did so. They didn't want to be like ""White America"" so they developed a counter-culture. + +> But those who move to Islam because 'the white man uses Christianity to bring the black man down' are misguided and don't know the historical influence of Islam and the Arab invasion on Africa or even the modern day slavery of sub saharan Africans still going on in some Islamic states. + +They aren't misguided, they are responding to the culture they were forced into. It isn't like they sat around and said, ""okay which religion has the least involvement with slavery historically, ah it's Islam! Lets go with that one."" Christianity had been introduced specifically to their ancestors by the white Americans that enslaved them. And during the Civil Rights Era many African Americans did things to counter the years of forced acceptance of white culture by naming their children with African names, or dressing in traditional African clothing, or changing their last names, or for some converting to a ""non-white"" religion. + +It allowed them to be religious and keep a separate cultural identity. +termitered: So you're saying a big chunk of the reason why they followed islam is because of a 'hipster-like' mentality?" +"McKoijion: If people on your health insurance plan are overweight, you'll have to pay higher premiums to cover their inevitable medical care. If people in your society are overweight, you'll have to contribute more money and effort to cover the cost of their choices. That's the fundamental argument behind why anyone else's concerns are your business. You can apply it to obesity, gun control, taxes, drug use or pretty much any other issue. As for whether this is a good argument or not, you can argue it both ways. Political philosophers from Aristotle to Plato to Hobbes have debated this point for centuries. +hey_hey_you_you: If a problem is endemic, that means there are widespread causes of that issue which need to be addressed. Shouting at an individual fat person is like yelling at someone who's unemployed in a recession. It's pointless. Systemic changes need to be made and public health campaigns must be mounted. Bullying or fat shaming just doesn't help." +"forestfly1234: If a cop pulls you over because you were speeding, are you really saying that you ignore the authority of the vehicle with the flashing lights behind you and just keep on driving. + +Or, when they ask you to show lis. and registration are you just going to ignore what they say? +Kryeiszkhazek: >If a cop pulls you over because you were speeding, are you really saying that you ignore the authority of the vehicle with the flashing lights behind you and just keep on driving. + +I recognize and submit to that. I fully realize the duty of a police officer is to uphold and enforce the law. + +I guess what my feelings are, is that we as a society grant cops the authority to police but if they are abusing that authority then we should also reserve the right to revoke it. + +I also know that there can be consequences, legal or otherwise, for lack of compliance in the wrong setting but I feel like if we don't actively contest unjust behavior from those in power at every possible opportunity then things will only get worse + +>Or, when they ask you to show lis. and registration are you just going to ignore what they say? + +If he is within the scope of the law to legally require me to do so then absolutely. If he is not, then yes I would ignore him." +"riconoir28: Mortality for drivers in the US is roughly 50 per millions. Death while working in construction in 2006 was 108 per millions. Driving is not the most dangerous thing these workers do in their everyday life. (edit. The more i'm looking into it the more I find that stats regarding this subject varies a lot.) +einmaliger: &#8710; There are certainly dangerous jobs where litte mistakes can easily mean death. I was thinking about the average office worker who has no particularly dangerous hobbies (like mountain climbing or extreme sports). + +So yes, the second part of the title is a bit too generic." +"nikoberg: We should certainly invest in future generations. But if you think mature adults can't change their opinions, how do you explain the massive shift in gay marriage over the course of about 10 years? [This news article](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/07/wsjnbc-poll-on-gay-marriage-2012-vs-2009-vs-2004/) documents a shift in opinion of about 20% to ""in favor"" of gay marriage. Over the course of 8 years, this is larger than the percentage of the population that can be accounted for by old people dying and young adults taking their place. So people definitely do change their views over their lifetime; most people who are racist, bigoted, or otherwise are so not because they are inherently bad people, but because they haven't been exposed to the correct kind of experience that makes them understand why their actions are wrong. +seventh_deathstroke: Out of those 20%, there'd be small percentage that is accounted for by old people dying and young adults taking their place. (admittedly, not much. probably about 4-5%). +So, even if we agree that adults are capable of changing their views, out of the remaining, there're also a class of people whose opinion changes based on popular opinion. If people were by and large against homosexuality in 2004, there'd be a lot of people who would be against homosexuality too, just to fit in with their peer. And I'm not talking about just pretending to agree. People actually believe in the things that appears to be the popular opinion. + +And even if we keep that aside, it's not these moderates, or 'flip-floppers' that are the problem. +> they haven't been exposed to the correct kind of experience that makes them understand why their actions are wrong. + +I accept that. I do. But the problem lies with the extremists. The ones who will vehemently argue the color of the sky to be grey on a bright sunny day, just because that's what they've grown up believing. That's what they've been rationalizing. And it's toxic. It's toxic to the extent that it casts doubt on the others too. On someone who's just beginning to start thinking about the color of the sky. And before he/she can decide objectively or fairly, there's this loud blaring voice proclaiming it to be 'grey!' . Those are the kinds of people, who I think cannot change. And those are the kinds of people who enable the existence of such traits in our society. The kind of people who're at the forefront and have a voice that influences less critical people. +" +"RustyRook: > My point is the more that people in developed countries accumulate wealth, the less wealth there will be for developing and undeveloped countries to accumulate. + +A tiny little econ metaphor should clear this up for you. + +Let's say that the global GDP (or income, if you prefer) is a shepherd's pie. Your'e under the impression that the size of the pie remains the same. This isn't true at all. Throughout history, the pie has increased in size. + +That's how we've been able to support a larger population on Earth, because there's more income to distribute than before. And global GDP is still rising. Africa is projected to grow rapidly during this century - both income and population. + +Did that help? +The_Irish_Sea: I meant resource wealth. The world's resources are finite, right? Even if $s can increase, what you can buy with it can not." +"Windyo: News is TERRIBLE for the general public, for the reasons you cited, and also because of herd mentality. You only need to look at reddit sometimes to see how people tend to flock to some news, disregard others, and then validate their views based on each other's pats on the back. + +However, you said ""News is bad for you"", with the ""you"" being interchangeable with anyone. the problem is that News are GREAT for some people : analytic-minded people, scientists... and historians. + +Let's pretend for 5 seconds that news don't exist. We the people live in blissful ignorance, and our leaders still get informed of everything through their secret service and intelligence bureaus. For the sake of this discussion, let's imagine that no leaks have ever happened. + +Every major scientific discovery has gone unnoticed by 99% of the population. With no media outlet to turn to, scientists have to resort to peddling to show off their wares. When they get noticed by someone powerful, their invention gets stolen - it's much easier to apss it off as your own than it is to pay royalties. And without big news agencies to bring the public eye to that sort of thing, who's going to argue ? + +Let's imagine that everything up to WWII went along like it did in the real world. Nobody knows about the concentraiton camps. Jewish people get killed off on a larger scale, the culprits don't really get hunted down, and no-one really cares : we're all blissfully ignorant. +Let's pop forward thousands of years : no textbook ever mentions WWII, or if they do, they give a propagandist view of it, and America is glorified. why ? because with the media outlet, no-one has any experience t share to the world, no-one has a story that sticks, and veterans die with their memories. also, why would the american government publish a true account of the thing when they could make it seem like they were heroes ? any government would do the same. + +Another situation : missing kid. No media outlets : no amber alert, etc. + +So all in all, I think news are useful. (not feeling particularly motivated for a great closing sentence) +Rhiokai: ∆ Although the reply to this by u/moldovainverona is valid, your points have changed my view." +"iamblegion: Sure, no one should be judged for it, but that doesn't justify sharing it with others. You reference this with ""not disturb the other person by telling them about it."" And really, that's where any judgement comes from. People are usually disturbed by unwanted, intimate details about other people. Everyone poops, but not everyone wants to hear about your poops, and you'd be judged for thinking it's wanted to share that information. + +You, for the most part, have a right to fap to what pleases you. But others have a right not to hear about you fapping. +Cow_Power: Well, yes, that would fall under ""distressing others"". I'm not saying you have a right to share your masturbation habits with everyone else, I'm saying that they shouldn't feel shame." +"scottevil110: You have two points here to be addressed separately. + +1) They are a rubber-stamp court. + +I disagree that the high rate of indictments means that they're just a rubber stamp. Prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that's required to get an indictment, so that's what they bring to a grand jury. Yes, the result is that the grand jury passes it on to trial, but that's simply because prosecutors aren't going to bother showing up without what they know is required to get the indictment. + +Doing away with them would enable prosecutors to just take whatever they wanted to trial, with or without convincing evidence. + +2) Protecting government agents. + +There is nothing to back this up. Darren Wilson wasn't on trial as a police officer. He was on trial as a citizen. The prosecutor isn't ""playing for the same team"" in any official sense. You could say that on a personal level, maybe he didn't try as hard, but the grand jury has nothing to do with that. If the prosecutor is corrupt and protecting the cops from legal action, then it doesn't matter how it gets brought to trial, they simply won't put forth a case that will win. +SnacksOnAPlane: >Prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that's required to get an indictment, so that's what they bring to a grand jury. + +You would need to prove this to me to get a delta. I found [this source that seems to argue the opposite](http://www.wisenberglaw.com/White-Collar-Criminal-Defense/Grand-Jury-Investigations.shtml): + +>""As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.'"" — Solomon L. Wisenberg + +As for this: +>Darren Wilson wasn't on trial as a police officer. He was on trial as a citizen. The prosecutor isn't ""playing for the same team"" in any official sense. + +If that's the case, why would the prosecutor bring up things like Mike Brown holding marijuana? The prosecutor is supposed to make the best case he can for prosecuting, right? I wouldn't say that he's ""corrupt"" because that would make him seem like an outlier. He simply has no reason to aggressively pursue a police officer. It's a flaw in the system." +"turtleintegral: > real harassment + +[Sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm). Sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat-callers are doing. + +> It is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue. + +Many women do not take what you are calling ""compliments"" and ""greetings"" as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex. The people in the NYC video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use ""compliments"" and ""greetings"" on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them. [Sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm) includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat-callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of ""real harassment."" It also reeks of a ""there are starving kids in Africa"" type of argument. + +> It disrupts normal social dynamics between people. + +Yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic. In fact, it seems rather rude. Personally, I think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them. You have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation. + +> It is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them. + +There's a time and a place for that. Shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place. + +> It will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they don’t have any problem even with real harassment. + +It will tell well-meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it isn't. Furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop. And yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who don't give a fuck and will still catcall, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to lower the amounts of catcalling. + +The point of the NYC video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as ""compliments"" or ""greetings"" and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable. I think it's best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have. + +> Radical feminists think that approaching a woman you don’t know should automatically be characterized as harassment. + +This is a total strawman argument. Feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment. Also, I would like to hear what your definition of ""radical feminist"" is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment. +TheChangingWays: > Sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat-callers are doing. + +> Yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic. In fact, it seems rather rude. + +Personally, I think that cat-calling is a rather stupid way of approaching a woman, but that’s not the point here. The only question is, whether it is harassment or not. + +> Sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual advances + +How are men suppose to know in advance that they are unwanted? They cannot, they only can guess by the clues that her appearance is giving them. She was dressed specifically to give the impression that she wants attention (make-up, tight clothes, the brand logo on her butt, pink shoelaces contrasted by her black outfit). If you give off nonverbal signals that you want attention, you will get it. + +And even with her attention seeking attire, in 10 hours of filming they couldn’t get enough footage so they desperately had to include these comments: + +“How you doing” +“Have a nice evening” +“How are you this morning” +“What’s up miss” + +If you call that cat-calling, then you are crazy. The ones that said these things were not yelling and they were not being rude. And that is the MAIN problem with this video. They could have included just stalking and cat-calling, but the fact that they included these polite conversation starters totally discredits their video and their message. + +> This is a total strawman argument. Feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment. Also, I would like to hear what your definition of ""radical feminist"" is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment. + +Ok, you got me here. I take back that part. +" +"gaviidae: The case didn't go to trial because Rice entered an intervention program which typically is done to remove criminal charges. It in no way says he is innocent and if anything implies he is guilty it's just a way to make the situation better without putting the spouse in jail. Rice also [apologized for his actions](http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/23/5744964/ray-rice-arrest-assault-statement-apology-ravens) which makes it pretty clear he behaved badly in some way. So it's completely false to imply the court considers him not guilty. + +As for the NFL they have been coming down hard on other behaviors. Ben Roethlisberger was initially suspended for 6 games for sexual harassment that he wasn't even formally charged with (Rice was not only charged but the charges were upgraded), Josh Gordon for an entire season for marijuana, and [A.J. Jefferson](http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/12/2/5167870/aj-jefferson-suspended-nfl-arrest) was suspended for 4 games for domestic assault. So a 2 game suspension seems pretty weak when compared to other suspensions and when Goodell is supposed to be getting tough on outside problems then it really seems weak. + +Domestic assault is a problem in the NFL. You have aggressive men with huge egos and there are going to be problems. It should be important for them to take the issue seriously. A two game suspension shows they do not [take it seriously](http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_c5nk3w3n) and deserves to be criticized by people who oppose domestic violence. +TheChosenJuan99: &#8710; + +Thank you for clarifying upon the legal ramifications involved in the entire situation. The first paragraph really helped to clarify the whole ordeal. My stance was mainly based upon the assumption that Rice was assumedly not guilty, so you've definitely changed my opinion." +"[deleted]: it just doesn't work: Children literally don't have the critical thinking skills adults do. A second grader is 7 years old: they literally can't do philosophy in any meaningful way. you actually need to wait until their brains have developed enough to grasp abstract thought. + +piaget's developement system. +http://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/piaget/ + + +on the other hand young people learning a second language is a really really good idea since learning it at this stage is much easier. + +IT: coding has the same abstract thought problems that philosophy shares and you really don't need to teach tech to them so early. waiting until kids are say even 5th grade works just as well. + +also reading is incredibly important for child development at early stages so your plan to de-emphasize that by implication is problematic. + +tl;dr/ELI5: there are concrete reasons grounded in brain science why our educational system exists in it's current form as opposed to your suggestions. +jedidreyfus: I understand for the brain development but in no way I was de-emphasizing reading, I even think that those 4 disciplines implicate 4 different kinds of reading (literary, mathematical, rational and normal everyday life). For IT, I was more thinking about how to do a google search efficiently, how to interpret what you can see on the internet and ultimately how to share and use actively the telecommunications services without falling for every scam; maybe I used the wrong term. + +∆" +"turole: I'm kind of confused and would like some clarification. Are you saying the statement ""There was no one behind the creation and spread of Christianity and the Jesus character did not exist in any form"" is plausible or ""The mythical aspects of Jesus are unconfirmed while it is likely that there was a man behind the myths in some aspect."" My understanding is that Carrier says the former and I thought that was what you were saying. The last statement ""Abe Lincoln vs vampie hunter"" suggests the latter. + +Which exactly are you arguing as plausible? +grimwalker: Hypothesis: No such person as an historical ""Yeshua ben Josef"" ever existed. + +It's plausible to me--the records, such as they are, originate mostly from the beliefs of a tiny cult. There's no historical record that doesn't ultimately tie back to the preachings of that community. That this character was originally wholly mythical, a demigod figure partaking of numerous mythological tropes, which in the first and second century, acquired historical encrustations which purport that certain events took place in the real world." +"RandomhouseMD: Because sometimes you cannot quite find the word you are looking for. You know that the word kinda means style, but without having a reference, you don't remember that the word you are looking for is panache. You cannot blindly use a thesaurus to pick random synonyms, but it can be a great tool when you cannot put your finger on the word you want, but know the things that are close. +GnosticTemplar: Learn to improvise! Maybe rewrite the sentence so you don't have to dig through a thesaurus in the first place? Most of the time it's bloody obvious when a desperate writer cracked one open. Less is more." +"comfortablyANONYMOUS: Well, you're argument has a logical flaw: They can believe they are in the wrong. An alcoholic can believe that what he is wrong, but still be a stuck as an alcoholic trying to improve. Similarly, a Christian that believes in the bible and is a homosexual would think he is wrong. So he could identify as a christian partaking in sin and would have to try to change from homosexuality. I would given a parallel but i don't know much about the bible. + +Based on your assumptions, that christians have to accept every word written in the bible (which I believe is incorrect), you would not be able to believe that homosexuality is good if you were a christian (and assuming that is how you interpreted the phrase) and hence couldn't decide to stay as a christian and a homosexual. + +Disclaimer: I am neither a homosexual or a christian. +SayOuch: In my explanation I said that I believe it is unjustifiable. I do not believe that what you pointed out is a flaw. A Christian who is identifies as homosexual would not be justified in believing what he believes because he would be sentencing himself to a life in hell. + +I should have clarified that I meant a person who believes they are a 'good' Christian who abides by the laws of Christianity." +"CatRelatedUsername: In a vacuum, getting rid of CoonTown is undeniably a good thing. + +*However*, nothing occurs in a vacuum. CoonTown played by reddit's rules. They were obviously on a short leash, but the reddit admins could never find a ""legitimate"" reason to ban them or their associated subs that was in line with the existing policies (i.e. no harassment). Ultimately, they were banned for their content, and that makes quite a few people uncomfortable. In effect, no one knows what the rules concerning acceptable content are anymore. More troublingly, it marks an immense change in reddit's policy; just a few years ago, during spez's last time in charge, he unequivocally stated that content would never be banned. Now? That's quite obviously changed. + +Most redditors concerned with speech issues are on a hair-trigger at the moment. They're not going to leave just because CoonTown was banned, but the way in which they were banned is making quite a few of us uncomfortable about the future of this site. + +reddit is dead. Long live Reddit. +Virtuallyalive: >He unequivocally said that content would never be banned. + +Where did he say this? Besides, /r/blackladies would say that Coontown wasn't only banned for content. + + + Redditors concerned with free speech doesn't include me, and quite frankly, I would be happier if they all went to voat." +"McKoijion: 1. ADHD is very treatable, and a lot of otherwise healthy people have it. +2. Almost every family has some history of depression and mental illness. Almost all families histories have heart disease or cancer too. +3. Your boyfriend may have dropped out of high school, but that could have been tied to his ADHD or his family life/environment. Intelligence is mostly practice/effort rather than innate genetic skill. If you put a lot of love and effort into raising your child, there is no reason he or she shouldn't grow up into a success. +4. If you don't approve of your own gene pool, it is possible that any children you adopt won't come from a ""better"" gene pool either. + +That being said, adoption is a very admirable choice. I wouldn't do it because you are scared of your own genes though. Genes are like a hand in a card game-what works for poker might not work in bridge (or whatever card game would make this analogy work.) There is no such thing as perfect genes, and you shouldn't discount yourself because of them. +_s0cks: &#8710; You make a great analogy with the card games and it's true that the disadvantages with which my own child could be born with could be equal to/lesser/greater than those of an adopted child and there is no way to really know. " +"McKoijion: That's only based on the strictest definition of the word. [Modern dictionaries](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural) have definitions of natural that separate it from ""artificial"" ingredients. Furthermore, they also have definitions that separate it from the unusual or unexpected (As in something is only natural or is unnatural.) + +Furthermore, even if you use the strictest definition of the word, it's still useful to distinguish it from the supernatural. Lots of concepts involve the supernatural from the vampire shows on the CW to the entire concept of God. Given how much time and energy human society devotes to religion, the natural and supernatural distinction comes in handy often. +pistolpierre: But even these artificial ingredients are derived from nature (via people, who synthesize them). And the unusual and unexpected are also a part of nature. I see your point though. + +As a distinction from the supernatural though, I would have to concede. Have a triangle thing. ∆" +"convoces: The idea that high death rate, such as one caused by a ""big Plague"" will curb population growth is false. + +In fact, the opposite is true, as a country addresses and *reduces* their death rate; their population growth actually *falls* as a result of societal and cultural decisions to have less children. This has been demonstrated cross-culturally and worldwide. + +If anything, a big Plague will *cause* greater rates of population growth. + +For more info, see Bill Gates debunking the myth of overpopulation here: http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three +elderstahl: &#8710; Sorry, I forgot to add delta while replying previously. +This comment certainly clarifies one aspect of the problem. that is, the possible post-""Plague"" effects. the post calamity growth of ""life is short"" psyche, people will tend to reproduce at higher rate, which - in due time - will nullify the effects of this so called ""Plague"". + +Although, another aspect of the question was this reduced population will provide us with possibly enough time to either explore other sustainability options or come together as a humanity to strive for a balanced future. " +"PrefersDigg: A few pros for oranges: + +- Easier to travel with. Throw an orange into a dirty bag, the part you eat stays clean. Don't have a plate to put it on? The peel suffices. + +- An orange is cleaner to eat. Both because of the peel, and because it naturally segments. Very hard to eat an apple without getting sticky juice all over you. I hate the feeling of sticky face and hands after eating an apple. + +- Hard to make an argument about taste as preferences differ, but personally I find apples pretty boring. Citrus is more interesting to me. + +To a few of your points: + +> Alcohol + +Not really a pro for apples themselves. There are also orange liqueurs. I'd say that apples are used for alcohol more for convenience historically, and now tradition, rather than any inherent advantage. Somewhere in Africa there is liquor made by the tribe's women all chewing up some plant matter and spitting it into a big pot to ferment (really, I swear, I saw it on an odd food show). That's not really a benefit to spit. + +> Food + +An orange pie seems possible, it's just that other citrus works slightly better for it (key lime pie...) + +> Diversity + +Perhaps the original form of the orange is better to begin with, so there's less need to create many variations. Also, if wide variations are allowed, I'd get to include many other types of citrus as benefits to oranges. A lemon, lime, grapefruit, pomelo etc are likely about as similar to oranges as the many breeds of apples are to each other, right? (cue biologist to tell me how wrong we are) + +> Pop culture + +Apple benefited from a recognizable icon, but given their neat technology, probably could have been just as successful as ""orange."" Unfortunately that wouldn't roll off the tongue quite so well, and the Macintosh pun would be lost... But blame whoever wrote the dictionary, not the noble orange. +keanex: 1: travel - I don't see an advantage here for either. I wouldn't put either in a compromising situation to get dirty and if my hands are dirty from hiking then an apple is easier to ear without getting dirt on the actual fruit. + +2: mess - I personally find oranges to be much juicier and prone to dripping, my personal experiences don't match up to yours. + +3: taste - I prefer citrus in some cases, but the acidity can lead to palate fatigue much quicker than a variety of a sweeter apple like a Fiji Apple. + +4: alcohol - apples are used for making wine and cider because they have enough sugar to ferment a liquid down to a decent alcohol level while having a wide variety of apples to mix and developed a cider for many different palates. Apples are also available in a variety of liquers, apple brandy for instance, with a much larger variety of apple based liquors that serve as a main beverage. Orange liquers tend to not be drank straight, with some exceptions. As an aside, look up chi cha. + +5: food - even if there were common orange pies other citrus, lemon/lime, already do a great job at that. Apple pie can also be enjoyed hot or room temp! I also forgot apple sauce, that stuff is awesome. + +6: diversity - the variety of apples you see as a weakness, but I see it as a strength to evolve! Not sure how similar other citrus is to oranges." +"culturedrobot: > Children do not enjoy handwriting in the slightest! + +Most children don't seem to enjoy school in general, so I'm not sure that point counts. I'm also tempted to call out the claim that ""children actually enjoy typing,"" because there was a severe lack of excited kids in my keyboarding class way back in eight grade. + +Anyway, penmanship is still important, just maybe not as important to some positions these days. A major reason to keep teaching children how to write legibly is because it helps improve basic motor skills like hand-eye coordination. + +Constantly writing actually made me a better speller, too. I'm not sure if this is true for everyone, but if we're comparing writing to simply reading, it seems like it'd be easier to remember how to spell a word correctly after writing it. + +Writing (or penmanship, whatever term you want to use) has a lot of benefits when it comes to literacy that may not always be immediately noticeable. And also, I really hate to be ""that guy,"" but I have to point out that four of your points are essentially saying ""kids don't enjoy this but like that, so let's just do what they enjoy."" + +Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure programming is going to be beneficial to a lot of those kids when they get older. As beneficial as learning good handwriting skills? I'm not so sure, especially if handwriting does have benefits when it comes literacy. +tf2manu994: ∆ i still believe that it shouldnt be compulsory, but you have still changed my view to ""it is neccessary till year 2"" +" +"MonkeyButlers: I think your mistake is assuming that protagonists are the drivers of the plot. Take two classic examples: First, Star Wars. I think we can agree that Luke Skywalker is the protagonist, but he hardly is the main driver of the plot. He doesn't really know what is going on and only reacts to the situations in which he is placed. Second, The Hobbit. Again, I think we can agree that Bilbo Baggins is the protagonist, but he's obviously just caught up in a situation which he doesn't really control. Gandalf and Thorin have much more to do with deciding what happens, Bilbo just reacts to situations. +sooneday: Even though they lack control over events, both Luke and Baggins are on the side opposing the status quo. + +Being in control isn't essential to being the protagonist, but if a character directs the plot, is in many scenes, and is opposing the status quo, that character is a protagonist. Cersei meets all those criteria. " +"Dick_Harrington: I can't actually disagree that an autocratic system can make decisions faster than a democratic one; it's honestly one of the downfalls of democracy. + +Let's talk about the long run though, as you state: + +>In the long run, a country that can't make intelligent decisions will never be able to compete with a country that does. + +Firstly, I think the assumption that a country like the US doesn't make intelligent decisions is false, it wouldn't be where it is if it didn't. Politicians obviously advise business, think tanks and academics before making choices, it would be undemocratic to do otherwise - that is termed 'making a decision in a vacuum' and is considered a dumb thing to do. + +Secondly, I was actually quite disappointed by the recent plenum of the communist party primarily because it failed to address several issues that will effect the economic success of China in the long run. When China decided to open its economy up to market forces decades ago, it made sense to be an export driven player in what was becoming a globalized market. However for China to succeed in the future it needs to modernize and focus on growing the domestic market by empowering its consumers. + +You talked about granting more property rights to farmers/rural folk which is good, the government also decided to deregulate some investment vehicles (because quite frankly all those ghost towns are embarrassing), strengthen social security and create a more independent judiciary (as an aside: does that sound very technocratic to you?). What they didn't touch on however were the biggest problems, quoting from an article here made this morning: + +>There was no clear promise to reform China’s bloated, subsidized and over-protected state-owned enterprises, which are crowding out the more competitive private sector. Nor was there any serious discussion of reforming a financial system badly in need of more commercially oriented banks and liberalization. The fact is that Xi has dodged, at least so far, most of the reforms that require the political will to take on entrenched interests in the public sector. “The leaders still seem to emphasize stability over decisive actions,” wrote BofA Merrill Lynch strategist David Cui. “This has strengthened our opinion that many of the tough reforms…may prove difficult to implement.” + +They also refused to talk about government debt has practically doubled over the last 4 years. + +My point is this. To compete with the USA and Europe, China needs to modernize, this is incredibly difficult to do because of the technocratic system, tendency to promote unity instead of innovation and rampant corruption (compare: http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/). Also, part of modernization of the economy will ultimately mean moving away from the nationalized economic model, thus reducing the power of government in the long run. + + + + + + + + + + +TheSkyPirate: ∆ + +Damn. Sounds like you're right. I read an article that said the CPC was focusing on liberalizing state enterprises and the financial system, but it turns out it was written last week. I guess they're not pushing through the important reforms after all. + +However + +>Firstly, I think the assumption that a country like the US doesn't make intelligent decisions is false, it wouldn't be where it is if it didn't. Politicians obviously advise business, think tanks and academics before making choices, it would be undemocratic to do otherwise - that is termed 'making a decision in a vacuum' and is considered a dumb thing to do. + +This is not true. Any radical economic policy change in a democratic country that requires an act of Congress/Parliament will simply not happen except in the chaos following a severe crisis. Institutions like the fed which are run by appointees are another matter. Europe is moving in the Japan direction because the governments of Europe answer to the people of the individual countries, and are unwilling to implement a more effective union. " +"BrownEggz: It depends, (in the US) if you aren't in the left most lane, then you're right. If you're in the left-most lane, however, you should move over, even if you are passing yourself. Or move over once you finish passing. + +Edit: + +> I was going at or over the speed limit and when there was no other traffic besides us (literally in one instance) + +If you were in the left lane, you shouldn't have been. If right, then the other driver was an asshat. + +> when the traffic was busy and it wasn't quite so easy to merge. + +This is more of a gray area. My answer is that you should merge over when safe to do so. + +> The burden should be on you to get around me since I'm going at or above the speed limit. + +Yes, but there is also common courtesy if someone wants to go faster than you and you are in the left lane already. + + +CKitch26: &#8710; + +I decided to come back and give you a delta because you were the top-rated comment. Since this post, I've taken 2 road trips and have and have kept to the right lane except when passing. It's been less bothersome for me to have to worry about people behind me and those in the left lane can just keep moving right past me. I may have also gotten over myself just a little bit. + +Thanks for making me a better driver" +"Yxoque: > I can't help feeling that it is a rather useless cause. + +I don't think it is. Every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights. We shouldn't miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it wasn't a manly profession. Neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys. + +Unless you have a good argument as for why certain genders are almost universally better at certain professions any sort of gender imbalance is going to cause society missing out on qualified people in the right place. + +And I think the police force is a special case, in this regard. I've seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot. A lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender. Children will gravitate towards female police officers (and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we'd like to live in). + +> They involve so-called ""positive discrimination"", which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman. + +People often say this when talking about this, but I don't think this is completely true. We know from several studies that when applying for, well, anything, people are discriminated against based on their gender, skin color, sexuality, etc. Even if the resumes are completely identical, this still happens. So if a woman wants to enter a male dominated field, there's a good chance she's going to have to be **more** qualified than a man. Positive discrimination is intended to get (in this case) women accepted when they are ""merely"" equally qualified. + +> They don't solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job. They may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there. + +And as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that. Unfortunately, we don't have one and we'll have to make do with measures we can actually implement. +quietandproud: > I don't think it is. Every field that is dominantly one gender over another is going to miss out on talented people with novel insights. We shouldn't miss out on a qualified nurse because some bloke was told it wasn't a manly profession. Neither should we miss out on a qualified scientists because some girl was told science was for boys. + +And won't we, by means of hiring a woman instead of a man, ~~loose~~ lose as many talented people as we win? + +> And I think the police force is a special case, in this regard. I've seen firsthand how some people react to both male and female police officers and having a good gender balance is going to help civilians a lot. A lot of people are more comfortable discussing certain things with people from their own gender. Children will gravitate towards female police officers (and yes, this is also due to harmful gender roles in society, but we need a police that functions in the society we live in, not in the society we'd like to live in). + +Here you are, sir: ∆. + +That's a very solid point. I was very adamant on the police force case, but now I see there's some logic behind making sure there are female cops, as there surely is with female firefighters. I still feel (although less strongly than before) that the method is misguided: it feels absurd that a woman would have an advantage against and equally physically fit man. + +> And as soon as we have good, viable way to stop the discrimination from happening at all, we should implement that. Unfortunately, we don't have one and we'll have to make do with measures we can actually implement. + +But doing this we are ""masking"" the discrimination. If we ever achieve equal gender representation, how will we know whether there's still discrimination against women or we are ""unfairly"" heling women? (I know this is very simplistic: I don't know how to state it better) +" +"gbdallin: I used to work at the state mental hospital here in Utah. A lot of our ""forensics"" patients (those that were there for criminal charges) were there for very violent offenses. There were several people who were there for murder. These people had been diagnosed with things like schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, and brain trauma. Their offenses were almost never premeditated, which is the big part. The idea that sometimes people just ""snap"" is actually not that far from the realm of possibility. + +The main part of this is that these are permanent, debilitating disorders, that can be helped or managed with proper medications. Legislation that bars those with mental illnesses do so to keep those kinds of events from escalating even further. Depression, PTSD, ADHD, are all ailments that do not frequently result in violent acts, and thus, aren't blocked. +rap_mein: >The main part of this is that [schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc.] are permanent, debilitating disorders, that can be helped or managed with proper medications. + +Exactly. So why should the government pass legislation which discourages people from seeking them help (and medication) that they need? To me, that's what this type of legislation would do; it would have no effect on people who are already **not** seeking help and medication, and would reduce the number of people with mental illnesses well controlled with medication and other forms of aid by encouraging them to keep their conditions a secret. + +" +"sloggz: I agree in a very broad sense with your view, however I'd like to challenge something I think you've overlooked. + + +When a peice of entertainment is extremly broad, to the point where everyone over the age of 12, of almost any language or culture can experience some sort of enjoyment in it, it can become a cultural phenomenon. For example, take the movies the Avengers, and Under the Skin. I enjoyed both of these films immensely, however, one is a deeply challenging artistic film that was hauntingly beautiful, and the other one featured the Hulk. + +Now, if I could only see one of those films over again, I would hands down choose the Avengers every time. Why? Because these days (and in all days) experiencing a piece of entertainment is more than just the two and a half hours of time I spent taking it in, it's experiencing everyone else taking it in as well. The reddit threads, the discussions in real life, the jokes, the interviews, the memes, the gifs. All of these are a part of that experience. + + +Entertainment with widespread appeal leads to many more instances of sharing that experience with the world around me, which I greatly value. +Smooth_McDouglette: ∆ although in changing one of my views, you've confirmed a different suspicion of mine. That people choose to consume mainstream media more not because they enjoy it more, but to better fit in. So there is considerable fuel to the argument that these people don't actually enjoy this content as much as they claim to. + +But you have a point. It's not like we are machines. Everything we do has to be considered in many other contexts. It may then be advantageous to decide to indulge in more popular media simply to facilitate socialization later on. But again it seems to strengthen my main argument rather than diminish it. I'm glad you brought this point up either way." +"gaviidae: I don't think anyone believes that CGI is always a bad thing in movies. The issue is the over reliance on it. Movies are going for bigger and ""better"" and that often means CGI rather than live actors. This makes movies even less realistic not just that they look cartoony but that the reason they use CGI is to do stuff that simply isn't realistic. + +Can you really [watch these clips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlOn9V_MmE) and think the movies were better because of these CGI sequences? +universaladaptoid: ∆ + +> Movies are going for bigger and ""better"" and that often means CGI rather than live actors. + +Okay, that's an excellent point. Here's a ∆. + +On a related note, I don't think that the movies in the Youtube link were better because of the CGI sequences, but I don't think they were any worse off because of them, but that's mostly just personal Apathy, I suppose. Thank you! + +EDIT: Added the ∆" +"McKoijion: Google has traditionally been an amazing company, but it has lost some its friendly start-up character as it's gotten older. It used to be that engineers ran the place. They made cool stuff and gave it away for cheap, because Google's search engine made so much money that they could afford to try out random stuff. + +Now as the company is older, they had to start promoting those engineers to management positions, and not all of them took to their new roles very well. On top of that, Google started hiring a lot more consulting/banking business types. They are starting to expect returns on their investments on their fun stuff, and are finding ways to squeeze every dollar out of their ads. Finally, many of the truly creative developer types are leaving/have left to get involved with new start-ups. As a result, the culture has started to seriously decline. + +A good example is the recent fiasco with Youtube. In the guise of improving the site, they put in more ads, reduced the download speeds, and forced people to sign up for their failed Google+ product to register for the site. You can tell that those decisions were made by executive types rather than engineers that are truly trying to make the best experience for their users. This isn't really Google's fault. It happens to all companies. Remember that Microsoft was the most prestigious/profitable/innovative company in the world for a while too. + +So Google is pretty good, but they are on the decline. I don't mean that you should sell your stock or anything, but they aren't the company we used to love anymore. +eblue: After some more thought, and after reviewing additional links provided by other commenters evidencing the shift you describe, I'm going to award you a Δ here. (Posts that provided the best of those additional links will receive deltas, too). + +Your narrative makes sense to me, comports with my business experience, and reconciles Google's early bountiful generosity -- and its initially considerate treatment of its users -- with more recent developments raised in this thread of which I'd been largely unaware, such as: + +* [The inability of Android users to opt out of, or exercise fine-grained control over, sign-in integration](http://en-us.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1vz63d/i_love_google_cmv/cexmwe1) + +* [Obnoxious attempts](http://en-us.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1vz63d/i_love_google_cmv/cex7khq) at getting people to sign up for G+ (I had been dimly aware of this, but before I read the remainder of this thread I viewed it as an out-of-character aberration; now, it seems like part of a disturbing trend) + +* Explicit industry collusion and internal compensation-flattening policies [designed to prevent](http://en-us.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1vz63d/i_love_google_cmv/cexcbhz) the most talented engineers from drawing ""outsize"" pay + +These things are frankly not as bad as what many companies do, but they suggest that Google's exceptionalism has seriously begun to wane. For awhile, Google was unique because it was a small start-up with industry and cultural prominence rivaling the largest tech and media corporations. So, of course Google's culture and ideals made it stand out from the behemoths that were its ""peers."" My affection for Google grew in part from my incredulity that a firm of its size and with its dominant market position would pass up easy, massively profitable but philosophically compromising moves such as...well...cross-referencing users' data across platforms without their permission. As it turns out, Google *is* doing these things with increasing frequency. It just so happens that their policy changes haven't affected me. Yet. + +Maybe I will buy stock though. Ugh. +" +"steveob42: it is all very hypothetical, but who maintains the technology? When we automate that task (i.e. self-awareness and self-development in machines) who keeps tabs on it? When does it become self-preserving? + +If everyone else is out screwing around at the beach with their robot drinks, who is gonna want to be a technologist and do that crap? Who is gonna want to govern/enforce humans for that matter? + +There are no guarantees, you are making a leap of faith in human nature (and the nature of technology). There is a wider and long term view to consider, and consider how fast technology already is evolving (and evolving outside the influence of the US government). I don't see how anyone can assume it'll all be fine without being proactive about the future. +Morgan_Freeman1: I'm not sure you read my entire post. I'm not saying that automation will make our lives better. I'm actually arguing that widespread automation will cause economic collapse. Because of such a large consequence, automation will never reach the sci-fi/fantasy levels everybody is dreading right now. I say automation won't be a problem in the future because it won't be as prevalent as everybody believes it will be. Maybe I should have changed my CMV to say that automation won't take our jobs on the widespread scale people believe it will." +"tweetypi: My sister tried breastfeeding for months, but no matter how hard she tried she could not give her enough, she would try and try until her breasts started pussing. She switched to formula and it dramatically improved her stress levels and allowed my niece to get the nutrition she needed. If she was forced to get a prescription only a few things would have changed, for one my niece would not have been able to switch to formula as easily, as it is my sister simply had to go to the store to get formula, of she had needed a prescription then there would have been a larger gap between when she could not give breatmilk and giving her formula, she would have starved until a doctors appointment could be made. +tweetiebryd: anecdotal evidence aside, i find it hard to believe that you can literally spend months not giving a baby enough. + +We'll assume it's true for the time being; There is no reason whatsoever that a new mother would have to wait for months before they can see an IBCLC. Most hospitals have consultants on staff, but these tend to be privatized consultants. When my wife saw her IBCLC, we got in contact, made an appointment, and saw her the next day. baby was 3 days old. after one hour with the IBCLC, she mostly told my wife that we were doing well, it would be a little uncomfortable, the milk is going to change over the first few days, and several other tiny truths that more-or-less just reassured my wife that she wasn't starving her baby. Mothers, particularly first-time mothers just aren't experienced enough to understand what they need to be doing, or if they're doing something wrong. + +we saw 3 different consultants at the hospital on the day of the birth. 2 said that the baby wasn't getting enough, and one doctor said it wasn't worth worrying about. Babies don't need much milk, they're tiny creatures. my wife insisted on getting a 4th opinion, and it's no surprise to me that the consultant that wasn't attached to the hospital was the most helpful, informative and assuring. + +You can't be sure that the baby wasn't getting enough: Babies don't know how to do anything but cry, poop and sleep. Just because a baby is crying doesn't mean it's not getting enough food. This is something that an outside consultant can know better than you, that they can reassure you about, or correct your latch, or if neccesary, tell you that you do in fact need to buy formula." +"[deleted]: Let me start by saying that I don't agree with the ""war on terror"". As a result don't mistake this counterpoint as a moral justification. It's more of a technical one. + +You might have a misunderstanding of the ""job"". The ""job"" of the armed forces, homeland security, etc. is to protect *American* lives. That's what their mission is, that's what they are paid to do. The inequality isn't viewed by the actors as a moral justification. They don't get paid to mitigate losses to other countries citizens or make moral determinations about the value of life. An American life is ""worth"" more because America spends more money to protect it. If the conflict country did / could spend as much; fewer of their civilians would die. + +Foreign citizens die more often because they don't have sufficient advocates internal to our system or sufficient advocacy from their governments. They will likely never gain advocacy from the US since doing so essentially takes time, money, and resources away from the job of saving Americans. Failing to save Americans results in political and budget loss. +Commie_Fascist: Excellent realpolitik explanation. I actually don't disagree at all with the definition of the government's job. The moral superiority that we so often imply in the face of all evidence is my real contention. " +"scottevil110: I agree with you in the case of beef, but all meat is not created equal. Chicken, for example, has a much lower carbon footprint as a result of production. They require less feed, they cost less to transport, and they emit less as animals. + +Here's a possibly credible thing that I just found on the internet: +http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet + +As you can see there, a ""no beef"" diet is scarcely more impactful than a vegetarian diet, as meats that aren't beef are fairly carbon-friendly. Obviously a vegetarian diet isn't carbon-free, as it still takes a great deal to farm and transport all of those vegetables. It's really livestock that's so inefficient. + +As to eggs and dairy, again these are fairly low compared to the consumption of beef. A single cow can produce thousands of gallons of milk over her life, compared to the one-off steak frenzy that we get from slaughtering one. And chickens (again very low carbon footprint) can pump out many times their weight in eggs with fairly little impact on the environment. + +if you truly want to help out the environment, I believe you could make a bigger difference by always eating locally-produced food, thus greatly reducing the transportation footprint. + +As to the cruelty aspect, that's up to your own personal opinion. Personally, the concept of getting milk and eggs from animals does not bother me, since both of these things are produced with or without our interference, and aren't causing additional harm to the animal. +seriyes: Thanks for your well-reasoned response. That's the same article I linked to in my post. :) First google result for both of us I guess. + + +I guess I came to a different conclusion than you after reading the article. While the reduction in carbon emissions from a normal diet to a beef-free diet is largest, the further reductions when continuing to vegetarian and vegan diets are by no means insignificant. + + +While you are mostly right about milk, cheese has a massive carbon footprint and the impact from eggs is relatively large as well. Relevant article: http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/ + + +I agree wholeheartedly about buying local produce and food. I do so whenever possible. + + +I mostly agree with you about the cruelty to animals. Farming practices bother me, but not enough to make me change my diet." +"dekuscrub: MEGA SPOILERS, NON READERS BEWARE! + +>Cersei - In the first three novels, Cersei was portrayed as a conniving, scheming, evil mastermind. + +Was she? Things went her way, but generally she had little hand in it. + +Jon Arryn? She and Jaime got lucky. + +Bran? She didn't even send the failed assassin. + +King Bob? It was a long shot and may even come back to bite her (Lancel). + +Eddard Stark? Himself/Littlefinger. + +Saving KL from Stan? Tyrion/Grandpa Lannister. + +Plus, remember she is very much unhinged by at the end of Storm. Murderous imp ( you think) takes out your eldest son and your father in what should be the safest place in Westeros, perhaps in concert with your master spy. Paranoia seems appropriate. + +Also, if the last Dorne chapter didn't build suspense, shit son your standards are too high. + +But I agree, least favorite of the series. +A_Mirror: She killed the king and got away with it. + +No matter how you slice it, that's an incredible feat. Jaime only got away with it because the king had gone mad, and even then he is one of the most reviled men in the seven kingdoms." +"complete_misanthrope: your first three points are the problem with ONLY teaching hands on. we need that kind of teaching to show how scientific experiments are done. there isn't enough money to fund all schools doing full scale advanced experiments and they wouldn't understand it anyway. we have to show them how experiments are done some way and hands on experiments are the best way. the difference is you also teach them ACTUAL research and how to interpret it rather than jsut saying ""here's what happens when you mix two chemicals, now go use that to make all science decisions"" + +as for real world consequences. 3 is religion caused mainly. people that dont see logic in the first place. 2 is because we can't afford our own medicine. if you can't afford a doctor people turn to other things out of necessity. number 1 is because we don't teach people how to do critical thinking and read scientific papers. this is in part because of the huge disconnect with the scientific community and popular writing as well as a failure of either the education system of the people in it to successfully teach how to read scientific papers. + +all in all you can't blame it all on hands on experiments. its like saying teaching 1+1=2 is oversimplifying and causing people to make mistakes when they get to multiplication. teaching basics isn't to blame for them getting overconfident with higher material. there are a billion other factors more to blame than basic experimentation. +antidense: regarding point 2 - that would indeed be predictable that people seek out alternatives due to expense of medical care. It would be interesting to see if people seek out less alternative care if obamacare does what it sets out to do. ∆. 1 - I would be happy if more people learned how to critique scientific papers. " +"ReallyLegitAccount: > I find it infuriating the the government has essentially created a needless job for people via a tax. + +Well, you can look at it as an upfront fee to generate jobs and income for some people. Without it, you'd still be paying for the welfare of the poor indirectly, through your taxes that support programs like food stamps and supplemental income. + +More importantly though, you said yourself that these people pick out the recyclables from the trash bins to sell. If you threw out recyclable materials instead of putting them in proper bins, the result would be the same. So I'm not sure how that would make any real difference. If you want to change the law, contact your representatives and join with like-minded people to do so, but I don't see how passive-aggressive action will cause any changes. +Youknowlikemagnets: Ok, I will admit that I do SOME recycling, because I'm not a complete asshole. + +I will also agree with your sentiment that at least they are doing *something*, instead of just taking a handout (can we award half deltas? I'm new to this). My mind isn't completely changed, however, because this falls in line with the ""digging holes"" ideology. Why are we paying people to dig holes if they are just going to be filled back in. + +People already recycle, so why are we charging them extra to have someone else recycle?" +"themcos: It depends on what exactly your job is. There are places where working the hours you describe is totally fine and accepted. But just because you have no morning meetings doesn't mean you aren't expected to be available to interact with coworkers, managers or customers. If you're part of a team, its important that your working hours at least mostly overlap with those of your teammates. +agbortol: It's obviously important that there be time for everyone to have meetings and also have the informal interactions that necessitate offices in the first place. If somebody wants to work from 6-3 and I want to work from 11-8, there are still four hours - half a work day - for those interactions to happen. + +Responsiveness to customers is certainly a big issue. I work in consulting and that a always a top priority for us. If my client calls me or wants to have a meeting at 7:00 AM or at 8:00 PM, that's when I'll take the call or have the meeting. + +The logistics truly are not that complicated, as most organizations on flex time can attest. What bothers me is the dirty look I get from my 55 year old manager when I come in at 8:45 and he was there at 8:00. That guy hasn't seen the other side of midnight since the first Bush administration, whereas I have no problem banging on a spreadsheet until 2 AM. The prevalent attitude, at least as it comes across to me, is one of judgement or superiority rather than concern for lines of communication." +"selfproclaimed: > 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. +workaccountoftoday: 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?" +"Amablue: > If a person has sought help, therapy, or honestly believes/knows that their situation will never improve, why is it we advocate they continue in their suffering. + +As you say, there are basically 3 responses - ""do it"", ""don't do it"", probe for more information. + +There often is probing for more information, but that has limited effectiveness over an online forum like reddit. There are also lots of people not responding. Of the two remaining responses, ""don't do it"" is a much, much better default. Even with any context provided by the user, we have no way of verifying any of it. The situation *may* actually be hopeless and unfixable, but we have no way of knowing that. The problem is compounded by the fact that oftentimes people who are mentally ill and may not be capable of reliably or accurately speaking about their situation in an objective way. + +Advocating for these people to kill themselves may result in them doing it even though their situation may have improved. And it's permanent. + +On the other hand, if they really are in a situation which can't and won't improve, the harm done by telling them to keep on living is much less severe. They may live a little longer in pain, but they still always have the option to commit suicide if they choose to. A dead person cannot reverse their decision. +drdrink: >On the other hand, if they really are in a situation which can't and won't improve, the harm done by telling them to keep on living is much less severe. They may live a little longer in pain, but they still always have the option to commit suicide if they choose to + +How is this less severe than the person no longer living? the only real argument I can see is to say that any experience is better than no experience. To me, an experience of ongoing suffering with little or no hope of improvement (or one that will get worse) is worse than no experience at all, and I guess that is the basis of my whole argument. and if a person finds themselves in such a situation, how is it okay to say to them, after they have come to the conclusion of suicide, that continuing to suffer is somehow less severe than no experience at all? " +"jtfl: Why be good, when you can be great? Why not set your life up as an example for your children to follow? Do you want your children to accomplish great things, or simply get through life being unnoticed? Why would you ever choose to strive for mediocracy? + +Sure, the pain of loss is real, and it hurts. But how does that compare to looking back at someone's life and realizing what they missed out on, because they wanted to avoid pain? “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.” +nerak33: &#8710;" +"Russian_Surrender: You're confusing the *charitable* act of willingly sharing your own money with those less fortunate than you and the non-charitable act of forcing others to share their money with those less fortunate than them. + +If we are walking down the street and see a homeless man and I give him $5.00 from my pocket, that is charitable and, generally, in line with the teachings of Christ that you discussed in your post. If I take $5.00 from you and give it to the homeless man, that is *not* charitable and is *not* in line with the teachings of Christ. Taking it a step further, if you refuse to give me the $5.00 to give to the homeless guy, and my response is to threaten you with a gun to convince you to give me your money, that is quite a far cry from the teachings of Christ. + +[Studies](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html) [consistently](http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923) [show](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/religion-politics-affect-americans-philanthropy/?page=all) [that](http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals-versus-conservatives-how-politics-affects-charitable-giving/) Republicans are more charitable givers than Democrats. +sugly_fluck: > sharing your own money with those less fortunate than you + +Hm, maybe I should elaborate slightly on my characterization of political conservatives (at least those in America). + +The most devout ones, who also seem to be the most devout ""Christians"", try to propogate this idea that the ""less fortunate"" don't really exist. If you're poor, it's supposedly your own fault. The playing field doesn't need to be leveled out because everyone should just deal with what they are given. + +Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus seems to assert that it doesn't matter why someone is poor. Less fortunate or not, it's just not okay to withhold a lot of wealth and refuse to offer it to those who have less. The actual internal human feeling of ""greed"" is the ultimate evil here, and political conservatives contradict this by pining for a system that can't really function at all without some greed. + +I believe I understand your point, but there is still a mindset among political conservatives that it's okay for wealth to exist alongside poverty, and my understanding is that *that's* what Jesus had a fundamental problem with -- the existence of wealth whilst some are left to worry about basic sustenance. + +Perhaps Jesus isn't a perfect example of a liberal democrat either, but he is certainly closer to that than conservative. He supposedly viewed greed and wealth as problems in themselves, while conservatives don't." +"____Matt____: [""Junk food costs as little as $1.76 per 1,000 calories, whereas fresh veggies and the like cost more than 10 times as much, found a 2007 University of Washington survey for the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.""](http://nypost.com/2013/07/28/the-greatest-food-in-human-history/) -- NY Post + +[""The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/) -- NY Times + +[The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.""](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/) -- NY Times + +Both talking about the same study. + +It's not about absolute price. It's about price per calorie. Junk food is much cheaper per calorie. +digitalx3r0: Fair enough argument if you've an underweight family to feed - but many of the arguments I've heard are from obese people claiming that they're obese because natural, nutritious, low-to-moderate-calorie food is too expensive! This is simply untrue." +"cdb03b: The fact of the matter is that the US obtained our military objectives and got the surrender of the Axis powers. That means we won. + +We also came out of the war with a booming economy and new military strength that catapulted us from the status of a World Power to that of Super Power. That means we won. + +Also much of Japan's and Germany's stability and safety nets were established because of direct US interaction in aiding them rebuild after the war. That means we have great influence and that we won. + +So do explain to me how we lost when we still enjoy the strongest economy on the planet and are currently the last super power standing? +HoodieAndGlasses: ∆ for the US aid to Germany/Japan and for booming economy, but I think it's clear from the past fifty years of US foreign policy that the US gets dragged into an absurd number of military quagmires, where lots of time, money and lives are lost, resources that could be used for the betterment of the country itself. Sure, global dominance has it's benefits, but I say it's not worth the price. Do you disagree?" +"sheep74: So i'm going to completely ignore the abortion issue, because let's face it, that's never going to be resolved on here. Needless to say some people, including those in power, aren't happy about abortion being an option, let alone the 'preferred' choice. + +You also have the issue that you're essentially saying 'no kids for poor people' which has all sorts of issues. + +At the end of the day people and contraception aren't perfect. So you're going to get babies from people who don't have insurance. If it's not covered you're going to get women and children who end up with even more healthcare requirements that could have been avoided if the prenatal care and labor went smoothly with medical intervention. It's probably not cost effective to exclude maternity care - you'll end up with babies with chronic conditions that need paying for their whole lives that could have been avoided. +krausyaoj: ∆ poor parents care more about having children for their own selfish benefit than the welfare of their children, so instead of being responsible and getting an abortion they will have the child without proper medical care often resulting in a damaged child." +"elvish_visionary: So while I agree with you that overall, the arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution are better than the ones against it, maybe I can at least offer a couple of points. + +1) Legalizing prostitution might have a negative affect on poor women (or men, let's keep this gender neutral). With such a readily available income source, people who are struggling to pay the bills might become prostitutes instead of pursuing their actual goals. Similarly to how children in developing countries could be ""forced"" into child labor if it is legal, people can be economically ""forced"" into prostitution. I believe people should have a right to their own body etc, but when economics are involved, it becomes a little fuzzy. For example, we do not allow people to sell body organs, because those who are desperate for money would feel compelled to. + +2) Prostitution is far harder to regulate than you seem to think, and it's tough to protect men or women who are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are alone with a ""customer"". Sexual assault and other forms of violence are not uncommon in these situations. +shredlord1234: While I agree that it would be difficult to regulate, I'm not convinced that is strong enough to warrant it's illegalization. + +However, the disproportionate targeting of poor people is a strong enough argument to warrant my switching to a more neutral position on this issue. I believe major economic reform is needed to avoid scenarios like this but in our current economic environment...you make a good point. Is it that much different than stripping though? It seems like many women in poverty turn to stripping for the reasons listed above and while sex is obviously far more extreme, I'm not seeing the clear difference from a legal perspective. + +Edit: Also porn. Doesn't porn already target the poor? + +&#8710;" +"Madplato: > He said he felt betrayed, violated, slutty. + +How he react to this (extremely weird) situation is entirely up to him. If he feels like this, I think it's normal he'd be depressed about it. He feels betrayed by a close friend, which isn't an easy thing to live. You shouldn't try to grade his feelings regarding the events, as nothing productive will come out of this. It doesn't matter the scale of the events. He seems to be in a bad state of mind and that the important thing to consider. + +You have a choice to either support a friend in need, or judge their situation and decide they're not worth your empathy for some reason. That's up to you. +morbidlyobeseT-rex: &#8710; +You make a good point. I actually never downplayed his feelings and story to him. and the fact that he's feeling so devastated about it is the main reason I'm trying to be as supportive I can. But... Maybe, if he understands that it's really not as horrific as he thinks, it will make him feel better?" +"littlegreenalien: Apparently you don't have kids. Doing the dishes for a 4 person household takes about an hour, so, using a dishwasher saves you approximately an hour a day which is a lot of time considering what else has to be done between going to bed and coming home from work. (cooking, eating, cleaning up, homework, some after school activities, kids bedtime, some free time to read/watch TV/game/reddit) + +> dishes needs to be pre-cleaned. + +Just the big scraps of leftover food. You don't have to rinse plates as some people do, in fact, it's better if you don't. + +> dishwashers rarely removed ingrained or dried gunk. + +true. But with a family of 4 the dishwasher is always full every evening, so there is very seldom 'dried gunk'. Occasionally (lets say once every 2 weeks in my experience) there is an item which needs manual washing since it didn't got clean. + +> dishwashers don't properly dry ""deep"" items like Tupperware and pots, + +True, this is the case with most plastics. It's irritating and makes unloading the dishwasher a bit more time consuming. + +In short. It saves people 'time'. A commodity which is very valuable for many families. +elejota50: Wait. No rinsing? Really? What about rice and stuff.. Can I just leave it if it is just a little bit?. + +You are right i don't have children (yet) and so it takes us two days (4-6 meals) to fill up the dishwasher..." +"down42roads: You're wrong. Not an opinion, a statement of fact. + +The purpose and responsibilities of the federal government are clearly laid out in the [text of the Constitution.](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) + +Murder, rape, and theft are specifically NOT the purview of the federal government, while things like guns (to some extent) clearly are, and things like marriage equality, abortion and the minimum wage are inferred from the powers listed in Article 1, section 8. + + +loxxyhasmoxxy: Let me clarify: violations of human rights such as murder, rape, and theft should be universally recognized as illegal by the federal government, while everything else should be up to states. The states would still handle the murder, theft, and rape cases, I'm not for changing the judicial system. My bad, I'll edit, that was poor clarity. " +"haikuandhoney: This doesn't address all of your reasoning, but it's important to remember that one of the ""good will"" things that the United States does IS its military. We provide military support to many European countries (with many bases in countries like Germany) and to Latin America. The presence of American forces is this region, unlike our presence in the Middle East, is a stabilizing and pacifying force. The American military is one of the primary reasons for the long period of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere. Basically, our hegemonic power as *the* military power in the world is good for the world so long as we use it properly, which we have not done in the Middle East. + +The other problem I see with this idea (and I don't necessarily believe this, just playing Devil's advocate) is a lot of Americans, especially the far right, think that the United States has no obligation to other nations to create good will. The purpose of a nation and its government is to better the position/lives of its people, first by protecting them from external threats, then by protecting them from internal threats, then by giving them greater/cheaper access to the things they need/want. By this logic, creating good will in the world is only useful to us as long as we are benefiting more than we are spending. In a lot of cases it is easier and cheaper to go in and destabilize a country, take what we want, and leave than it is to make the majority of that country like us. Why would we pursue the less efficient option? +Glares: You make a really good point that I haven't considered before; I figured something like this would never happen but never really had a foundation on why and I think you do a great job explaining. Even so I'm still wondering if it *could work* if, in a crazy situation, it is given a chance." +"RichardPerle: First of all, the creation of Israel in the early 20th century was the original spark of conflict. The British brutally conquered the native inhabitants in the [first](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Gaza) and [second](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Gaza) Battles of Gaza. + +The land was then simply handed over to the Rothschilds with the [Balfour Declaration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration), which many strongly suspect was in exchange for bringing the U.S. into The Great War. + +After winning the Six Day War, Israel has occupied the [Golan Heights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights) and has established 41 Israeli civilian settlements. + +As for Palestine, Israel has occupied it, planted many civilian settlements, [established checkpoints](http://imgur.com/eliPyNH) and travel restrictions for the [native population](http://imgur.com/lHd1ZKF), abused control of the [water supplies](http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.574554), attempted to [starve](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-idUSBRE89G0NM20121017) them, and essentially [turned their country into a prison](http://imgur.com/FvIchIY). + +Oh, and sometimes Israel will use [white phosphorus](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46061000/jpg/_46061574_007651442-1.jpg) on civilians when they get tired of just randomly shooting them. +morvis343: ∆ Thanks. You know, it feels good to be a little bit angry at Israel after being angry at the Palestinians my whole life." +"mr-agdgdgwngo: We have found a way to prevent skin cancer. Not only skin cancer but highly irritating sun burns as well. It's a simple as rubbing cream all over your skin before stepping out into the sun for extended periods of time. Why should we not put on sunscreen? Just because animals don't? If animals with exposed skin and could understand that sun exposure leads to an increase in skin cancer, would they not want to wear sun screen too? We have the tools to improve our own lives that animals don't. Why should we avoid using these tools simply because animals don't have the advantage of having them? + +We also lived for thousands of years without dental hygene, clothes, professionally constructed houses, cars, computers, etc. Should we toss away those as well? +commakzlm: (The first half of this comment is really fucking stupid, I'm just leaving it there for posterity. no more downvotes plz) + +>Why should we avoid using these tools simply because animals don't have the advantage of having them? + +That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, animals don't really seem to be bothered by the sun at all. It's not like with vaccinations, where we're using a tool to keep something that wants to harm us from doing so. The sun has been here for life's entire history, and it seems very unlikely that evolution would make something that dies simply by being around it unless that thing spends its entire life underground. + +>We also lived for thousands of years without dental hygene, clothes, professionally constructed houses, cars, computers, etc. Should we toss away those as well? + +Of course not. I just think that we shouldn't put so much importance on wearing something that hurts the environment and causes a vitamin D deficiency. I'm not even saying we should stop using sunscreen altogether, just that we should stop being so neurotic about it. + +EDIT: accidentally a word" +"Mavericgamer: Unlike other drugs, alcohol is ingrained into our very culture on a pretty deep level. Wine has been a thing since times BC. Religious rituals use wine, we pair our foods with wines and beers. For a long time it was the best way to make sure you weren't drinking harmful bacteria, as it wouldn't grow in alcohol. Even tobacco, the second most ingrained thing in Western culture, only goes back about 2-300 years. + +But I disagree that you are an outcast if you don't drink; I understand that it feels like this now. These are long-term friends who you've known for a good portion of your life. But at that age, a lot of people develop contradictory interests. I had a few friends then who I had known since I was 9 or 10. We don't talk anymore, and I'm 27. And it hurt at the time. But time heals. And I realized that I didn't want to be the friend of this person, I wanted to be the friend of someone who didn't exist, to be friends with a phantom. As of today, I am the only person in my closest group of friends who drinks even fairly often. Of the 6 other people, 4 don't drink at all, and 1 drinks very rarely, closer to being completely sober. To be fair, 2 of those are under the drinking age, but still. + +Also, I don't want to sound like I'm trying to convince you, but when I was 18, I hated the taste of alcohol. Beer was disgusting and hard liquor was awful. Then I found particularly fruity cocktails. Then, as I aged, I found those too sweet. A few months after I stopped with cocktails, I was at a business function where people were drinking beer, and the CEO handed me a beer. I figured that you don't not drink a beer your CEO hands you, so I drank it, and found that it wasn't as repulsive as I once found it. + +I also understand the revulsion towards heavy drinking culture. I had it too, and (oh god I can't believe I'm saying this) when I was your age, I swore I'd never drink. And then I started career building, and I realized that after a certain point (and I can't point to the exact moment), you aren't seeing a bunch of people who just hit the drinking age going hard-bodied, you end up finding people who drink occasionally and socially, and not to excess. Today, I don't drink often, but every month or so, I will go out with some co-workers for happy hour and have a few beers, or a couple margaritas, or whatever. +Sheinar: Your point about the religious significance of alcohol is something I hadn't actually considered when writing my original post. I'm not one to go against religions, I'd rather not tangle with that :P and you're very right that many religions have it deeply ingrained. And the idea of harmful bacteria not growing in it is a really interesting point I hadn't considered either. + +But I don't think that really explains why (well, it explains why, but doesn't explain why we haven't rebelled against it) the ""drinking culture"" of binge drinking, going out to ""get smashed"" and that is so acceptable in our society. Maybe that's just my particular age group, but I feel that everywhere I go in the 'social-scape' of my age group, it revolves around alcohol at every turn, to the point where people specifically make events just to get drunk. + +You raise some good points, and I know I didn't really make it that clear in my original post, but I don't really have any issue with people having a drink or two when hanging out with their friends socially. I don't have any issue with people using drugs in their own privacy either. It's the fact that the more dangerous (to the person, and the people around them) levels of drinking are socially acceptable. The wish I talked about in my post is for it to be looked down upon to be done in the public capacity it is now, like Marijuana is, where it's unacceptable to be stoned in public, but fine to do so where you don't affect other people." +"scottevil110: > I feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools. + +Not if the person has no intention of staying alive throughout the ordeal. + +> And if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would-be gunmen before the tragedy even starts. + +How do you figure? They're not going to know whom to stop until there's a reason to stop them. + +I understand the desire to keep schools safe, but let's be honest with ourselves here. School shootings, even in the US, are pretty damn rare. School is meant to be an environment of learning, broadening one's horizons, and feeling free to pursue knowledge. How are we ever supposed to convince kids that school is worth anything positive if they have to start every day by going through a metal detector and dodging police in riot gear? +swagnetron: Even if they get involved after the violence occurs doesn't mean they can't reduce casualties. And I understand that school should be a place of learning but it's important to realize that, like airports and sports venues, these are heavily trafficked establishments that, because of there frequent density, are prime targets for attacks. You can't teach a class full of corpses. " +"DHCKris: It doesn't follow logically that, because we are all human beings, we cannot reasonably acquire all of the knowledge necessary to make a judgment. What if I'm an American with a doctorate in Russian history? I think that makes my opinion ""more valid"" than even the average Russian. But what even IS a more valid opinion? I have a right to form a stance based on facts as much as they do. And I'd like to think I have access to the same facts, possibly more facts in some cases, when the native population is media suppressed and kept in ignorance. + +Also, people of a country are more likely to be biased than me, an outsider. So maybe the opposite of what you say is true. +anusoffire: Having access to facts is one thing, experiencing somethign another. I'm pretty sure that Ukrainians/Afghanis/whoever know better what's best for them than any American with all his facts. + +>Also, people of a country are more likely to be biased than me, an outsider. So maybe the opposite of what you say is true. + +This makes a lot of sense and is very close to changing my view. I'll consider awarding you a delta " +"hacksoncode: I don't think most people have *that* much of a problem with the ""my grandpa stole your grandpa's axe, I still have it in my garage, so morally I should give it back"" unless it goes back so far that there's really no legitimate way to determine who it goes to, etc., etc. + +However, that's not really what's going on here. As typically presented, a better analogy would be ""My great-great-grandfather raped your great-great-grandmother, so I should pay child support to you"" or ""My grandfather beat up your grandfather and kept him from starting his own business, so I owe you a restaurant"". + +Or even more often, ""some people completely unrelated to me or my ancestors, who happen to have also lived in the same country I live in now screwed up your country, so now I'm obligated to help fix it"". That seems like a pretty morally questionable stance to me. + +Many people in the U.S. today didn't even *have* ancestors in the U.S. when slavery happened, should they have to pay taxes to pay reparations because we once had slaveowners? +guysnake: Your analogies have clear some stuff up. I think the problem was that my analogy wasn't relevant enough. +∆ +My first time here, I'm not sure that if thats how you correctly award deltas. " +"skacey: While I agree that the net level of abuse has likely not changed, our acceptance of it has. As society progresses and expects that more and more of our problems are not solved through violence, the police force has not kept up with that progress to the same degree. + +In short, just because the violence hasn't decreased, doesn't mean that it shouldn't have. That makes it an increasingly important issue. +itroitnyah: &#8710; + +Thanks for saying this. While it hasn't of course changed my view, even you said you agree with it, it has made me realize just why people are making a big deal out of it. But I don't really understand why the police force hasn't kept up with the progress to the same degree, considering they're made up of people from society." +"fnredditacct: I don't disagree with this: + +> If it were up to nature and there were no doctors, medicine, or anything like that, people like me would have likely died before we ever got the chance to bear children. + +or this either: + +> If people voluntarily chose to not reproduce like I am doing, there would be far less people with genetic disorders. + +And, of course, I don't want to go around convincing anyone to have children because I say it is okay. + +But I don't agree that it is necessarily morally wrong, nor would I discourage it, and this is why: + +We, as human beings have more to offer than can be singled down to any one trait, or possibly even set of traits. + +Someone who is horribly unhealthy, and in great pain and misery because of it, isn't necessarily someone that has nothing to contribute to society. Stephen Hawking and ALS, for example. *And any other ""great"" person that had any other genetic disorder for however many examples you like* + +It isn't possible to know, (at least now, and quite likely ever), everything a person can possibly contribute based on their genes. + +In my own modest bad health experience, I have taken away that the pain and suffering I've experienced have in fact enhanced some of my positive characteristics, and help me contribute more to others. I think similar things could be said for pain and suffering of many kinds. + +Now, if I happen to pass on my condition, (which, admittedly, I would think differently of, if it were known to be fully genetic and not a combination of environmental and genetic influences) I won't be happy about it. I'm sure I'll feel horrible when I see them in pain the way I am. + +But I believe suffering is a part of the human condition. I believe it is meant to be. I believe we suffer for reasons, and learn from suffering. And I firmly believe people suffer in one way or another. When it isn't health, it's something else. + +And I believe that my husband and I have many positive traits, and that we offer quite a bit to society around us. And I believe that our child would be a good contribution for us to make, and have good things to offer, even if they also have health issues. + +Now, I could be wrong, we might have crap kids that do nothing at all for society, and keep more bad health genes around. + +But I don't believe that bad health and bad health genes or good health and good health genes are all people contribute to society and to future generations. + +I don't know what all the traits are, or what order I might rank them in, but I know there is more than just health. + +edit: sorry, I quoted more than I meant to +josh1727: I'm not saying people with genetic disorders have nothing to contribute, i'm just questioning the ethics of knowingly passing on a genetic problem to a child. + +I do believe that suffering builds character, though. My experience has made me a lot more humble and I don't see myself as invincible like most people my age. I don't do drugs, smoke, or drink and don't take life for granted. I don't know if these traits that I have outweigh what I went through, but it is definitely something to think about. + +I like the response overall. I will wait for more comments before I award a delta, though to be fair. + +" +"RustyRook: You aren't totally wrong about it. Anecdotal advice is the reason Amazon values its reviews so highly. People do find a lot of value in reading another person's experience. I'm one of them: I bought the watch that I'm currently wearing after reading over a dozen user reviews on Amazon. + +However, unlike with scientific evidence, you should be much more skeptical about relying on anecdotes. There are plenty of fake reviews on Amazon. In fact, there are so any that Amazon has [had to take action](http://www.geekwire.com/2015/amazon-files-first-ever-suit-over-fake-reviews-alleging-calif-man-sold-fraudulent-praise-for-products/). So proceed with caution and try to get a LOT of feedback so that you aren't influenced by false or misleading reviews. +strategic_expert: That's a good point to bring up. There are people that are paid to give anecdotes (infomercials, fake reviews). Those should always be read or listened to with caution." +"m0ddem: Let's step outside the car scenario for a moment. + +You deface my property; let's say you destroy some rather valuable rosebushes. It can be accidental or intentional, all that really matters is that the property was destroyed. They're insured for a certain amount. + +Why do you get to dictate what I do with the money, which is a replacement for the property you defaced or destroyed? The way that insurance works is that the damages are a monetary equivalent of said property. Essentially, you're now capable of telling me what I can and cannot do with said property. +ArgueAccount: My point was mainly focused about vehicles, but I will still try to respond. + +I don't get to dictate what you get to do with the money. If my view was that I get to choose what new types of flowers you get to plant (or what kinds of repairs you receive), then I'm sure you'd be more correct. I'm saying that you had something taken away from you, and you should be able to get whatever was taken replaced. You should not, however, be allowed to use that money on something completely unrelated to the incident." +"JEWISHPIGFARMER: Coming from a chemical engineer: + +Without sociologists to study populations, how could engineers know how a certain group would react to a product? Without gender/racial studies, who would find out if there is discrimination going on and propose solutions from a view of expertise? Without literature/English, who would become experts in analyzing texts to determine their meanings that aren't science reports, to be more specific, who would be able to teach children how to properly read analytically if there aren't experts in the field? + +There is more to the world than building things that are efficient and cheap. Everything ties together in some sort or fashion. Just because something doesn't always have empirical research doesn't mean it is failing. All theoretical physics aren't empirical yet, so should those not be funded until they are? + +There is more than advancing knowledge, having experts in the base of knowledge that we've pushed nearly to its limits so that we don't lose it is just as important. Just because we know pretty much all there is to know about a field doesn't mean we should just stop teaching it. +primalchaos: On sociologists: If they limited themselves to statistical studies and asking pertinent practical questions to guide serious projects, I'd have little quibble with it. But, when they start pushing pet theories of the mind without much basis besides self-referencing theories, I start having a problem. + +On gender/racial studies: Once again, bad standards and bad research. People talking mostly to each other without accountability. A good statistician should be able to do their work without all the garbage and moral indignation. + +On English: Understanding and writing English could stop being taught after high school, and can be handled by an degree in Education, not English. As a subject, it does not require a four year degree to perform the practicals on. In-depth study should be the province of scholars who can find private support, rather than supported by the public. + +**EDIT:** Perhaps these departments wouldn't be an issue if they were under serious pressure to seem productive and useful rather than producing treatises on the population density of angels on pinheads. But as they stand, they seem like an expensive luxury that everyone has to pay for, and are bloated and unproductive." +"zardeh: Your issue isn't with islam, it is with fundamentalism. I'm jewish. Two of my closest friends are practicing muslims, both attend mosques in my area, one is a hijabi, the other is male. We've discussed religion, we hold different views on Israel, they are fully pro-palestinian, I'm in a more centrist on the issue. We get along fine. No one attempts to convert me, they don't shove the Koran down my throat. Realize that the Bible has laws that people don't follow now, so does the torah. Every religious text has laws that most people don't follow now, that's what happens when you try to deal with a 1, 2, 3000 year old book. The issue you have isn't with islam specifically, but with people who feel the need to do, literally, what the book said, instead of applying its teachings to modern time. + + +On another note, thank you Firefox for trying to correct hijabi to hijack, made my day. +Xarthok: You are right, the problem I have is the same with all fundamentalism. I think with time the fundamentalism will die out. But is there no other solution other than time? Education could be one if in problematic countries women would not be in grave danger for attending a school. ∆" +"ReOsIr10: >One can´t think about WWII (the strong nationalism back then can easily be considered as a sort of religion in my opinion) without the genocide of the jews, homosexuals and mentally handicapped or anyone who disagreed with them. + +That's being completely unfair to religion. If you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it's going to make religion look bad. + +> Or for example the Islamic State. + +Which Islamic State? Sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some Islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of Islamic nations which are doing quite well too. + +>Especially as a gay man I can´t talk to a religious person without having a tenfolded fear of how they will respond when they know I´m gay. + +I'm gay too, and I can't say that my personal experiences particularly support this. Sure, I've had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but I've also had crappy experiences with all the ""brogressives"" who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet aren't accepting of people who don't happen to be like them - and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence. +LightDrago: >That's being completely unfair to religion. If you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it's going to make religion look bad. + +You have a point, however where does one draw the line between an ideology and religion? Isn´t religion a form of ideology? Wouldn´t extreme nationalism be just as ideological as religion? In some of those cases their consider their leader a deity, which gets really close to religion. + +>Which Islamic State? Sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some Islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of Islamic nations which are doing quite well too. + +Sorry I didn´t clarify this enough. I meant the current extremist groups that have been all over the news. Their main drive is religion it seems to me. + +>I'm gay too, and I can't say that my personal experiences particularly support this. Sure, I've had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but I've also had crappy experiences with all the ""brogressives"" who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet aren't accepting of people who don't happen to be like them - and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence. + +I have to confess I didn´t come out to that many people yet. It seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia. However it does seem more likely for me that a religious person dissaproves homosexuality. Or is this just a prejudgement form my part? +" +"NaturalSelectorX: > I don't understand why locking someone up for life is beneficial to anyone. + +It gives you time to appeal if you are innocent. It's beneficial for the people who didn't commit the crime. + +> If someone does a crime so atrocious that society deems them unable to return from it, then I believe the death penalty is justified. + +It may be justified if we have 100% certainty they are guilty, but we never have 100% certainty. How many innocent people are you ready to kill just to save a bit of money? +srlehi68: &#8710; + +This makes sense. I think our system is really complex and we still don't have a perfect solution. Thanks for your comments!" +"not_jamesfranco: How about acts of altruism? For example, consider firefighters that run into a burning, collapsing building in order to save people. You could say that they want the 'good feeling' of rescuing people, but they do it with the understanding that there's a substantial chance they could be killed. I feel like feelings are pretty irrelevant where death is involved- you don't get a good feeling (or a bad one) when you're dead. +like_the_boss: Thanks for your reply. + +I know that when I have done things for people, it's made me feel really good. I once encountered a girl who had been slipped a rape drug and I drove her home and made sure she was ok. It felt really nice to have saved her from a potentially dangerous situation. I've no doubt that fire-fighters must feel a massive high when they rescue people. To say nothing of the feelings of pride they must experience telling people what they do, the adulation and admiration by men and women, the extra sex they get from girls who are turned on by their bravery (assuming a male fireman). Is it possible that if you put all that in one side of the balance, it outweighs the risk of death? To my mind yes. Especially when you look at these figures from U.S. Bureau of Labor: (you are more likely to die as a taxi driver than as a firefighter) + +The figures below are the number of (2006) on-the-job deaths annually per 100,000 workers, by occupation: + +Policemen: 16.8 + +Firefighters: 16.6 + +Men: 6.9 + +Women: 0.7 + +Farmers and Ranchers: 37.2 + +Grounds Maintenance Workers: 13.5 + +Fishers and related Fishing Workers: 147.2 + +Construction Laborers: 21.4 + +Roofers: 33.5 + +Structural Iron and Steel Workers: 61 + +Operating Engineers and other Equipment Operators: 18.2 + +Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers: 90.4 + +Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors: 40.7 + +Logging: 87.4 + +Mining: 28.1 + +Taxi and limousine drivers: 22.1 + +Truck Transportation: 27.2 + + +I know this makes me sound really callous as if I'm saying that firefighters 'only' do what they do to feel good. I'm not saying that. But I suspect that if being a firefighter made them feel bad, they wouldn't do it, even if they were saving lives. + +In my original post, I said, ""examples of times when people do things, and they don't expect to get a good feeling out of it or avoid a bad feeling"". I think firefighters probably do expect to feel good doing their work, so I don't feel like your example contradicts this. But I do think your example is an interesting one, am grateful for your input and would be interested to discuss it further.. + + +" +"km89: >Shouldn't we instead be incentivizing jobs that need more skill and education. I think the best way to incentivize would be to remove or reduce the minimum wage. If someone knows that they can't live based on their pay from a fast-food joint then they'll have even more incentive to get an education and a better job. + +I live in the USA, so I'll focus my argument there. + +People who have minimum wage jobs aren't there because they're lazy. +Education is expensive. Obtaining skill and obtaining education, therefore, requires either help from someone who does have the money, or a way to earn the money by yourself. Normally, the parents of college-age people are expected to pay or to help, but with the crap economy, that can't happen the way it used to happen. + +So you have a whole generation of people who are left to pay for college nearly entirely by themselves, in a time when wages are low and costs are high. Put simply, low-skill jobs pay so little that it's almost impossible to go to school full-time. Therefore, people are taking longer and longer to enter the workforce at a high level, and are spending more and more time in low-wage jobs. In the meantime, they're paying for part-time school, they're paying for housing, for food, for bills, for the costs of owning a car... and frankly, you cannot expect them not to have a social life until they're well-established in a job after four to to seven years of education--they wouldn't have a life until they're 40, which precludes a lot of family-starting. + +In essence, the longer you wait to get an education, the more bills you'll end up accumulating, and that's unavoidable. In addition, the lower your wage, the longer you'll have to wait to get your education. Following that, the lower your wage, the longer you'll need to stay in a low-wage position. + +It's a vicious cycle--low wages lead to lack of opportunity, which leads to low wages. Reducing or eliminating the minimum wage will only make that *worse,* not better. + +While yeah, there's probably a percentage of people who have the opportunity and are just too lazy, that doesn't describe most people who just *can't* get a better education. Giving them incentives to move upward won't work when they already have all the incentive they need, but no opportunity to do so. +MyNameDontAsk: &#8710; I overlooked the fact that it education is expensive and by dropping the minimum wage it will only get harder. The incentives are already there and people don't need anymore " +"kepold: >I don't understand how definitively discriminatory actions cannot be considered racist + +you are missing the point of racism. the issue is that ""racism"" has a negative connotation because a specific attribute of a person has been used to oppress such people, black people (for example) have been subject to very harsh treatment because they were black. it is because of that fact (and other cases like it) that racism is considered problematic. The history of an oppressor using their position of power to oppress on the basis of a small characteristic is what makes racism racism. + +if this history wasn't involved, and people simply used race as a way to describe people (even if poorly), no one would care about racism. If it wasn't used to degrade, it would just be a form of random classification, not racism. + +So in the case of someone from an oppressed class stating that they can not be racist, they recognize that their status as an oppressed class means that they do not have the power to oppress in the way someone from a powerful class would. and to someone from the oppressed class, the concept of racism is not just about classifying by race, but about classifying by race with the intent to oppress. since the oppressed can't systematically oppresses the powerful, they can't be reverse racist in the true sense of the term racist. + +kezzic: This is what I'm getting at, and what I don't understand. Why is there this underlying influence of the term ""oppression"" on the definition? Racism is degrading, yes, and can most definitely be harmful if used by an oppressor. But what makes being a minority and the use of racism mutually exclusive? In the example I gave from /r/nottheonion, the subject was denying white males access to a social activist meeting. + + +You are lumping the term oppression into the definition of racism, and that's where we are disagreeing. Yes, the two can both exist, but in some cases I feel like they can exist without one another. In the example, a minority was discriminating against another race, and prohibiting social cooperation from an entire demographic. I understand that the magnitude between this example and black oppression as a whole is distinctly different, but I feel like this is a prime example of racism/predjudice/discrimination on behalf of a minority. + + +In this instance, I see this as racist, but I don't see it as oppressive, because it doesn't carry as much weight as a racist societal/political system would be. So aren't oppression and racism seperate terms? Why are you defining them as synonymous. And wouldn't that invalidate the idea that minorities can't be racist?" +"matthewrozon: So you would have been able to do this if you had a child, no spouse, no family support system and had to work 60 plus hours a week just to feed, house and get care for your child and yourself? Because that's what the debate is about, not the healthy 26 year old that has the time to learn programming on the side +brad--: ∆ + +I don't know if I could have done it with many children, perhaps it would have taken longer." +"Account9726: Economic viability is important for businesses, and these plans won't provide the outcomes people want once that is taken into consideration. + +The trees in tree plantations are often a monoculture instead of a mixed ecosystem, so they all grow at the same rate. They may not even be from the area, as things like ""growing quickly"" will be favored over ""local type."" They are not allowed to become old growth forest with the associated ecosystem, often being cut down after only a handful of decades (which may seem like a long time, but isn't for a forest). Finally, the easiest land to build one is an existing forest which could be cut down to make space if it was economical to do so, which increased paper demand would do. The net effect would likely be maybe a few additional trees, but less forests. + +Eating endangered animals, on the other hand, has totally different issues. Most animals are wildly unsuited for mass production. For example, anything that is endangered because it doesn't breed well in captivity is a no-go. Similarly many take far too long to grow to a useable size, or require more expensive food (for example, predators and meat), will fight if kept together, or are extremely dangerous. You could theoretically try to start a farm for McBengal meat, but unless everyone is cool with paying $10,000 a burger and you can sell enough of them it isn't going to be economically viable. +BayronDotOrg: ∆ Good point about the McBengal costing $10k. I really didn't think about the fact that not all animals are suited for breeding in captivity, much less being mass produced." +"GnosticGnome: How is volunteering incompatible with narcissism? There are plenty of narcissistic [voluntourists](http://www.utne.com/Politics/The-Dark-Side-of-Volunteer-Tourism-Voluntourism.aspx) helping out in all sorts of worthy endeavors. A selfie picking up trash can be far smugger than a selfie dancing and celebrating. + +By all means, volunteer - good deeds are good. And by all means, be humble and modest. But I don't think that volunteering inherently creates modesty. Finding a way to modestly show solidarity is a very tricky needle to thread. It's certainly compatible with volunteering, but I don't see the two as linked. +n_5: This is a good argument, but I don't think avoiding narcissism will ever be possible and I think that modestly showing solidarity is a hard concept for many people (myself included) to fully embody. I don't deny that people are still going to be voluntourists at pride parades - but better to be a narcissist and do necessary work than to be a narcissist and not do that work, right?" +"Snorple: Not sure how you are thinking that a shock collar is used, but it may be far more humane than you think. When I was a kid, we had many dogs chase cats off of our property. We had two dogs killed by cars. We don't think tethering a dog is humane (in fact, it's illegal now where we live). We can't walk the dogs all day long, either. + +We never think of our dogs as sacks of meat. They are beloved members of our family, and we want to keep them safe without keeping them on a chain or in a crate. + +Therefore, as a supplement to walking dogs with a leash and occasionally visits to a dog park, we have used an ""invisible fence"" for our dogs for 23 years now. This is simply a wire loop buried a few inches all around our property. This wire loop creates an antenna that activates a collar when it comes within a few feet. + +To train the dog, we first mark the fence line with flags. We train the dog to avoid the fence line using a traditional leash with no shock collar. We teach her that the fence line is a no-go area, but that the rest of the property is her domain. + +Then we use the shock collar in combination with the leash. If the dog approaches the fence, a warning tone sounds and we tug the dog back away from the fence line, reminding her that this is a no-go zone. She associates the flags, the tone, the tug, and our commands as a reminder that she can't go there. + +The final step in training is to remove the traditional leash and use only the shock collar. If the unleashed dog continues toward the fence, the familiar tone sounds and the dog is reminded to move back. + +If, however, some temptation is too great and the dog continues toward the fence line despite the warning tone, a brief shock is delivered. The dog then scampers back to us for comfort and reassurance. + +Once we're sure the dog understands the relationship of the property line, the tone, the shock, and the no-go status, we removed the flags gradually: first every third one, then a few more, then a few more until they are all gone. The lesson, however, remains. + +Our current dog has received exactly ONE shock so far in her entire life, and this was during the final stage of training. In exchange for this ONE shock, she has been completely free in our yard her whole life, and she unfailingly respects our property line as though it were a concrete wall. She's safe from road hazards or from running away, but she runs, jumps, and explores our whole property to her heart's content. + +We think this is a humane way to cope with the conflicting needs of living with a companion animal in a world full of arbitrary property lines and road hazards. +MacDHD: I completely understand the training method you have employed. This behavioural reinforcement method is effective. + +The one problem I have is when you say ""The dog then scampers back to us for comfort and reassurance."" This says to me the dog is scared and confused. I don't believe the shock is enough to debilitate the animal but It clearly causes stress. + +I appreciate that this is a counter measure due to rules put in place but surely there are ways to reinforce the idea of the boundary without doing this?" +"DickButtSlamson: The idea of corporate tax cuts isn't necessarily intended to help the business directly. The ecconomic liberation that it brings to the upper class is supposed to ""trickle down"" to everyone else.The idea of trickle-down economics was used to much success during [Reagan's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics) administration. The basic idea is not that cutting taxes will create jobs. The idea is that the wealthy will be able to invest more; It's not necessarily about the business itself. It's kind of an abstract concept and I'm not explaining it too well. If we make the top class more successful, they won't have to be as frugal, per-say. They can take their profits and invest them rather than hoard their heavily-taxed income. The aid is not intended to go directly into the company, but rather trickle down. + +To me, the idea of cutting taxes on big business is not really about helping that business directly, but rather increase economic freedom to allow the surplus to trickle down. It worked well for Reagan's years even with his enormous Cold War spending, although I'm ill-equipped to argue that it'd work for us now. +WildlifeAndrew: &#8710; I knew I had to be missing something. This does make at least a little sense. But then I have to ask, what if instead of providing tax cuts to a corporation and wait for it to trickle down, we take that money and directly provide it to people in need? In theory, they are going to take that money and spend it on things like food/clothes, pay off loans/credit cards, or in some unfortunate cases take adavantage of it and waste it on something they don't need. Even if all it does is end up in a savings account at a bank, the money still ends up going to corporations (potentially faster than a tax cut might actually be able to). At that point, the trickle down effect can occur and help everyone, but in the meantime, some direct assistance was provided to the people that needed it most, potentially easing their situation to the point where they need less assistance in the future." +"KuulGryphun: > If the definition of ""cis"" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they just be called women and men? + +Because the terms ""woman"" and ""man"" got overloaded. The word ""woman"" can refer to either a ""trans-woman"" (a person who was male at birth but has reassigned to female) or a ""cis-woman"" (a person who was and still is female). You can be annoyed about it, but ""cis"" definitely has a meaning. + +Depending on context, its probably safe to assume that when someone says ""woman"" what they mean is ""cis-woman"", but that doesn't mean there is no ambiguity. +SighEops: ~~Can I put half of a delta for this comment? Hehe.~~ ∆ + +I see where you're coming from, but if someone is a trans-woman (which I assume means *male-to-female*) then why would it matter if you're saying ""woman"" anyway? If they're MtF, then wouldn't they want to be called a woman regardless? " +"FallingSnowAngel: Actually, it was the kinksters, transvestites/transgender, and the prostitutes who fired the first shots in the modern gay rights struggle, back when respectable gays would hide in the closet and attack their own. [Go team!](https://www.google.com/search?q=stonewall+riots&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) + +Without the so-called freaks raising awareness in so blatant a way, you'd still have more of [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing) kind of horror story. + +Although, seriously, [that was nothing.](http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/07/lgbt-history-the-decade-of-lobotomies-castration-and-institutions.html) + +Today, the wild parts of gay pride parades exist, as a small minority paying tribute to the courage of those who have lived before, and because nobody should have the right to silence those who are different, whether or not you approve of all that evil sex they're having. It's just that the media is obsessed with just one thing - but then, they have a shitty record of covering anything when they want to pretend they're ignorant prudes... +JizzOnRainbows: ∆. Pardon my ignorance but I thought all gay pride parades were lewd. Now I see why the ones that are lewd are lewd." +"britainfan234: Selfish means lacking in consideration of others. *The suicide person might not be thinking of others. The person whos calling the suicider selfish though is probably thinking of other people who will be harmed by this. + +Now if it was only a family of 2 though and 1 sister wanted to commit suicide I can see how both would be selfish but that usually isnt the case. + +So, whether or not someone is selfish is really about whether or not their actions/advice only benefit themselves. *Suicide people might be only thinking about themselves and therefore might be selfish. + +EDIT: I realized while in discussion I cant assume the majority of suicide peoples motives. Therefore, I will simply stick with the accuser's, who are more reliable. +fetalalcoholsyndrome: I dunno.. I feel like a lot of people who commit suicide do it because they feel they are a burden on others hence the feelings of total worthlessness." +"c-herms: Here are a couple points I can think of off the top of my head. The first one is nuanced, but the second one is what I consider the absolute fundamental rule for any road occupant to follow. + +1. Road size: Living in a fairly dense urban area, the physical size of the road is often not conducive to a cyclist (or a motorist for that matter) being able to always be more than a door length away from all parked cars while still being a safe distance from oncoming traffic. On most of the roads on my daily commute, riding in the exact center of my direction lane still puts me in danger of coming in contact with an open door. + +2. Responsibility of driver to ensure safety when changing the status quo of the road: Anytime a road occupant does something to make a change in their movement pattern, it is *always* their responsibility to ensure the action is safe, *not* the responsibility of other drivers to adjust their movement pattern to accommodate. This is true whether it be a lane change, a left turn, proceeding through an intersection at a stop sign, or opening a door. When a driver opens his/her door, *they* are *actively creating* a situation that could be dangerous to themselves, cyclists, and other motorists. As such, it most definitely is the responsibility of a driver to do a quick mirror check for any traffic before throwing their door open. It takes two seconds to do, and it could save both your car door and someone from serious injury. +ZanzaraEE: 1. I couldn't imagine a road being that thin and still allow bidirectional traffic. If you couldn't make the fit (safely) between oncoming traffic and the door lane, how could a car be expected to? + +2. That's a good point. However, I think a road occupant must first must ensure their movement pattern is safe, then we can worry about *changes* in movement pattern. I feel that riding next to parked cars is something fundamentally wrong with a cyclist's movement pattern that make it so that no reasonable driver can be expected to see them all the time. +Also, and not the strongest argument against you: it is not *always* the responsibility of someone to making a change in movement pattern to ensure that said change in movement pattern is safe. Someone can slam on the brakes and it is not their responsibility at all if the person behind them was following too closely and rear-ends them. So sometimes we say ""Person A is free to make *blank* change in movement and Person B needs to drive/ride in a fashion that ensures they can do so safely at any time."" + +> quick mirror check + +given the speed of cyclists and the manner that they sometimes dart around vehicles I do not believe this is always sufficient" +"joshh1727: The point isn't that there are plenty of followers of Islam who don't kill people. That is pretty much a smokescreen argument that people like Rezla Azlan and other PC liberals use to smear and misrepresent the true argument that people like Sam Harris and Bill Maher make. + +There are good Muslims out there, most of them are, but they are good because they are moderates who don't take their religion literally. The ones who do take their religion literally have much more direct verses of violence, hatred and oppression they can look to to justify their hate. The Quran has [109](http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm) of verses that can turn one to violence. The Bible by comparison only has [one](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013:6-10), and it is in a section of the bible that Christians don't strictly follow. + +I don't think pointing this out, and pointing out that places that operate under the laws of this book are more oppressive, violent, and sexist is bigoted at all. It's actually fair criticism. What is dangerous however is what people who cry ""islamophobe"" are doing because by saying that fair criticism is bigotry, they are censoring it, and letting these disgusting human rights violations continue. +FabricatedByMan: The Bible, from my reading of it, seems abhorrent has far as violence is concerned. + +You are correct that many theocracies based off of Sharia law are abhorrent. The same could be said of the female castrating African countries who are majority Christian. + +A spade should be called a spade. But damning an entire religion because of some people's interpretation of a young religion that hasn't had time to develop like Christianity and Judaism has, doesn't seem entirely fair. + +I believe Indonesia is a great example of a country with an Islamic majority where polls show very few Muslims there think that the penalty for apostasy should be death. I think the answer isn't yelling about how terrible Islam is, which I do think it is terrible, but education. + +If we can teach religious people why child genital mutilation is bad and make them question their family's religion, I think Islam will be forced to adapt, as the other religions have. + +I see this as a problem of education, not of theology." +"anotherdean: The ""long run"" doesn't exist. It's an expanse of time in which nothing will be around to experience anything, and ""mattering"" is a function of the capacity of beings to value conscious experience. You might imagine a bleak universe experiencing heat death and feel that everything you've ever done has never mattered, but that's an experience that will only ever be had by you, right now, as you imagine it. + +Nothing is going to be around to see everything ""cease to matter,"" which effectively means that there's a significant problem with the notion that ""mattering"" is dependent on the infinitely continuing experience of conscious creatures. + +That said, what matters only occurs in the span of individual consciousnesses and personal preferences. The sort of mattering you're talking about is really your subjective feeling about the worth of the whole of human experience. In that sense, maybe it's true that you'll never feel that anything has mattered. But maybe you're depressed and this is just your subjective feeling. + +Maybe lots of things are mattering all the time, presently, for a lot of people, and that's the only way mattering can occur. Maybe civilization, plumbing, electricity, and civil rights are all worthwhile goals and successes of humanity. Maybe it's entirely a function of your perspective. +effervescence1: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I read through your post several times in order to best understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the basic premise of your argument is that living beings can bestow significance upon experiences, which makes those experiences matter. Therefore, if humans consider civilization, civil rights, or anything else important, they make that thing matter. + +That's an interesting view, but it seems to me that you've failed to fundamentally challenge my position. Your post has just altered the definition of 'mattering,' so that humans have the ability to make something matter. Of course I've experienced that ability as well- I work hard towards getting good marks in school, and therefore, to me, good marks matter. I value my relationships with my friends, and so those relationships matter. + +That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't tackle the fundamental belief of existential nihilism, which is that life has no intrinsic meaning or purpose. I can convince myself that good marks or friends matter, without believing that my life has a real meaning to it. Those good marks or friends are just the most comfortable means to an inevitable end. + +As for the second part of my post, I said that I believe nothing will matter in the long run. The examples you've cited - civilization, plumbing, electricity, etc. - only matter in the short term. You yourself admitted this by saying that ""what matters only occurs in the span of individual consciousnesses."" Since what matters is limited to occuring during consciousness, anything that matters will ultimately lose its importance, when the consciousness that bestowed significance upon it dies. So while humans may be able to make electricity matter in the short term, we can't do that in the long term because we're limited by our inevitable death- both the death of our person and the death of our species. To re-iterate this point, it is possible for humans to bestow meaning upon something without that something 'mattering' in the long term. You support this by saying that ""mattering"" is limited to the existence of consciousness, and as consciousness will ultimately end, so too will anything's ''mattering.'' This actually supports my argument, as nothing can matter in the long term." +"Mavericgamer: The problem that poor people have against rich people, is that while the poor person might be an asshole, and the rich person might be a dick, even in the worst case of both of those scenarios, it's the dick that fucks the asshole, and not the other way around. + +That is to say: It isn't *you*, the rich person, that poor people are mad at. It is the system that benefits the rich people seemingly unjustly because they have money. I could launch into a long drawn-out economics discussion, but the short of it is that trickle-down economics isn't working and hasn't worked in a while; to paraphrase the new Pope (and I'm atheist, it's just a good quote): the promise was that the cup shall overflow, and and that the overflow shall nourish the needy, but the reality is that the cup keeps growing so that there is never any overflow. + +So, seeing that nice car is a reminder that the poor are going to have to toil to get something half that nice when they're twice your age. And yeah, if you're a cool person, I can see how that would sting. But you have to realize, too, that to every poor person taking the bus, this sounds incredibly self-absorbed. ""I get a little bit of ill will because I can afford a sports car."" is about as ""first world problem"" as it gets, man. +johnsonysu: Very interesting points. Please do not take anything I say below personally: + +So just because the dick *could* fuck the asshole, the dick is therefore condemned even if he had no intentions whatsoever of doing so? So in essence, in times of depression because most people now live poorly, the rich are therefore dicks for continually being able to live well because they *could*? + +I'll rephrase. +So lets say an asshole wants to be a dick so that he could also buy nice cars and homes, (c'mon, everybody wants to be rich), why is it that we aren't mad at them? Is it essentially *wrong* to want to provide more and to improve the quality of life of your family? And is it essentially *wrong* to improve the quality of life of your family if you already have the means? And if it isn't fundamentally wrong, then why are wealthy people being persecuted solely based on their wealth? + +I mean why does it matter that the rich person lives well? You focusing on condemning his wealth is NOT going to alleviate your situation. Otherwise shouldn't all people living in third world countries essentially *detest* everyone fortunate enough to live in first world countries? + +The trickle-down economics is a terrible idea, yet people still inherently *expect* it to work. The inheritance ideology which it propagates is essentially why poor people (no offence meant at all, just for simplicity of argument) think that they simply just deserve better and thus think/behave aggressively when they do not receive that they were promised? + +Also aren't you just assuming that rich people were born in the cup? Perhaps they could have worked very hard to get there but just because they decide not to share their hard earned wealth, does not mean they are dicks. + +So you are saying that I should expect unjust prejudice and should just learn to live with this bias because I benefit from other aspects of life since I am wealthy? I don't like being called a prick for being rich but because I can afford a sports car therefore I am self absorbed? How does one make a connection that a rich person is self absorbed because he does not like being called a prick just because he can afford a sports car. It's is like making the connection that a homeless person is self absorbed because he doesnt like people calling him useless because he pleads for money. Should I now feel compassionate towards those who call me pricks? I reminding them of their inability to purchase a better life with my sports car makes me a well-deserved prick? Heavens help me if I actually do make a mistake... I'd be devoured by criticism...? + +My ambition is to leverage the wealth I earn in the future to better help those who are in financial needs and just desperately need an opportunity. Wouldn't be pissed on on a daily basis by poor people (again, just for simplicity of argument, NO OFFENCE MEANT) mean that I start having second thoughts on helping them because I just don't think they deserve it? I mean if third world countries start shit on us for donating too little or for not sharing more of our resources with them, wouldn't we be less inclined to give? + +Then again, does anyone truly *deserve* anything? I certainly do not believe that I *deserved* my car, but I was fortunate enough to be able to drive one. But then again, just because I drive one, and that I remind you of the fact that you don't have one, do you then *deserve* to also have one? And then lets say someone gives you that car you *deserve.* Should you then also *deserve* to be hated by those who are yet to receive theirs? By extension of this logic, shouldn't everyone just *deserve* a better life in general without working? And isn't this ideology essentially what Communism tried to encapsulate and manifest but failed?" +"[deleted]: If the world wasn't threatening, it wouldn't be rude. However, as a young woman, you have to be constantly on-guard. On guard for many people who want to hurt you. + +I know many men will have trouble with this perspective, proceeding under the mentality that if a woman made a sexual reference to them, they would feel flattered. + +Let me explain why this is a different scenario entirely: +Firstly, it is an unwanted comment on your sexuality. You are walking down the street, not really doing anything, and someone is basically saying to you: I find you sexually appealing. You have just been marked as a sexual object in the eyes of another person. You have just been commented on in an uncomfortable way. + +If a woman makes a sexual gesture to you on the street, and you are a male, you are not threatened by that woman (generalization). She is not stronger, she is not going to hurt you (generally). + +Now imagine, if a larger male, a more threatening figure were to make the same sexual gesture to you. How would you feel then? Frightened? Threatened? Weird? Violated? Creeped out? + +The catcalling is even more frightening when men are threatening looking, oftentimes leering at you or following you. If you were walking down the street, and a larger, more frightening, threatening male followed you, making sexual comments? +clamsterdam: &#8710; Thank you! + +[Earlier comment I made stating how you managed to CMV, but I had the delta in the wrong spot.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cq2e6/i_believe_that_catcalling_should_be_considered/c9j1zi4)" +"Val5: It can signal condescension towards the person you are replying to, but it can also be a part of a joke where it is directed towards something or someone else your comment is talking about. Occasionally it is neither, but an understandable emphasis or intonation. It should be pretty easy to figure out based on the context. +scopelessjay: ∆ + +I agree that the context does matter, it's just sometimes I'll see a reply and read it and go 'wow that's actually a great point, why did they have to italicise particular words, the emphasis seemed a bit self-righteous'. + + As a result, it *causes* an irritable reaction in me. + +I think I've kind of figured it out, from my sentence above (which was to illustrate what I mean, I don't actually mean to condescend). It's particular emphasis on verbs and a way of speaking which just seems high-horse like. + +I just don't understand why someone would choose that way of communicating vs a more earnest approach when attempting to debate something." +"Ray_adverb12: Usually cultural appropriation is harmful when people choose to utilize, or ""appropriate"", positive elements while ignoring or leaving behind more unpleasant elements. For example, white suburban kids listening to Gansta Rap and wearing do-rags while not having ever (or will ever) experience the specific circumstances that led to those becoming relevant icons in the Black community. Or, more recently, white people wearing headdresses to music festivals (or getting them tattooed on them). Headdresses are, in many Native American cultures, a very sacred and symbolic motif used for specific practices and people. White people who wear them are choosing to ignore the negative parts of Native life and cherry-pick aesthetics. I can go more in depth but that's not the point. + +You are interested in ""appropriating"" from a culture that hasn't had a lot of presence since the 16th century. Though I'm sure you could find an Incan descendent somewhere with an issue there, I doubt you will run into many of them. However, I wanted to address two points: + +1. Aesthetics + +This is the primary argument used by people who want to utilize symbols or costumes from other cultures. You understand this is not generally considered a way of ""honoring"" the culture, but picking pieces you think are ""pretty"" with very little regard for their weight or history? Usually, when discussing cultural appropriation in an academic string, this has no weight. + +2. ""I may possibly incorporate their symbols for the sun, their main focus of focus worship. Although nonreligious myself, I respect that worshiping the material sun and nature around us is an important trait more of us should take note of."" + +Let's say it wasn't the Incan culture, and it was Hindu. You admit to not being religious, but like certain aspects of their religion, which they probably take very seriously and personally. Do you see how this could be seen as trivializing, white-washing, and ""appropriating"" something that you admittedly don't follow in your own life? It's like saying ""Native Americans worship nature"". + +3. I hold a lot of respect for what their civilization accomplished, and would like to ""advertise"" them more through body art + +Do you think people don't know about the Incan civilization? Or are you attempting to create solidarity between you and those of Incan descent? Sorry, I don't really understand this point. +Tself: You partially changed my view and I don't see myself wanting religious symbolism represented, so I'll give a &#8710; for that. + +>Do you think people don't know about the Incan civilization? Or are you attempting to create solidarity between you and those of Incan descent? + +Neither of those. Well, maybe something similar to the former. Tattoos can often be a conversation starter, and I think any conversation that can lead to enlightenment is a good one to have. In this case, it could enlighten people about Incan history and art. And by means of getting the ink, I consider a form of respect for that culture and specifically artform. " +"down42roads: The reason that warnings shots are not legal is that they are, quite possibly, the most dangerous thing you can do with a firearm. + +Normally, when shooting at a target, your primary focus is on what the bullet will hit: your target. + +In a warning shot, your primary focus is on what your bullet will NOT it. There is a high likelihood that the shooter has not properly evaluated the are where they are shooting to determine if it is safe to fire in that direction. + +Even aerial warning shots (shooting into the air) pose a real danger to other people. Here are [two cases](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356851/Seven-year-old-boy-dies-hit-stray-bullet-fired-air-walked-July-4-fireworks-display.html) from [the same day](http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/falling-bullets-strike-man-pierce-roof-on-july-fourth-in-st-pete/2130200) last year where people miles away were struck by bullets from such gunshots, including the death of a child. +thefonztm: > Normally, when shooting at a target, your primary focus is on what the bullet will hit: + +*the thigh.* + +It's not like I'm going to look at the places I don't want to shoot. I'm aiming, and I require a higher degree of precision than shooting center of mass. + +I'm not insane enough to shoot into the air, but I can see that people might. Shooting the ground between myself and the target would be the ideal case since I can keep my gun in a ready position." +"cmvplease: It's not just personal safety, though. It's also other people's liability. + +Say you don't wear your seatbelt. What if another car accidentally hits your car from behind. If wearing a seatbelt, you would have survived, but instead you hit the windshield and, with the harsh impact, die. Instead of a smaller insurance issue, it now becomes manslaughter. + +I think it's similar to why police (technically are supposed to) enforce jaywalking laws. It makes you a liability to someone else. +justforfunds: This is a very good point. Ironically I used this exact same example when discussing with another Redditor why I think it is good that vehicular manslaughter carries short sentences in most states in the US. It's the best argument against my position I've heard and I'm surprised none of the people I've talked to about this irl have brought this up. + +That was short, you win ∆. + +Would still like to see more discussion on this if people have varied views." +"[deleted]: Eh, I don't think you need to be taking pictures of every meal you have, or constantly posting selfies, or changing your profile picture every month. But I used to feel like I never wanted to look back on pictures, and now I sometimes wish I had more. I ended up leaving my home country and gradually losing contact with people who had once been very close to me (my bad, but it happens). Some more pictures of them and fun things we did together would be nice. + +So yeah, the only real reason is, you might not feel like you want them now, but you might want them in the future. And having them causes no harm (put them on a memory stick instead of facebook if you're not into that). +akkronym: What sorts of things do you wish you had documented? Part of my situation and being in a digital age is that if my friends tend to take pictures and post them, I get to keep up with them that way in addition to our conversations. Assuming you had kept in contact with those people, what sort of stuff would you still wished you had pictures of that wouldn't be on their profiles? Seems like keeping in contact with them does double duty maintaining friendships and preserving memories." +"Scribbles_: Academia has always been like that. Mind you, a lot of ""SJW's"" are college students, they're used to this style of talk about social issues and mimic it on tumblr. The way it's always been with social activism is that there's a sort of ""ivory tower"" side and a more ""hands on"" side to it. + +The latter organizes youth groups, teaches people about racism on their local school or community center, it organizes things like pride parades and history month celebrations. + +The former is deliberately all talk, its efforts go towards identifying and naming the phenomenons that surround the injustice and discussing solutions. + +This is not a new thing at all, take socialism for example, you had the academic elite discussing about concepts with big words and citations to lofty philosophers, there was the side that came in contact with people and riled them up or informed them. Also take how sociology professors talk about microagressions and mental colonization, while black advocacy groups take those ideas and rather than preaching about them go into action to stop them. None of them does more than the other, they need each other to be effective and thorough. + +I think there are several problems with how ""SJW's"" are handling activism, but their academic or pseudo-academic approach is not it. Refusing to educate others is regressive and a problem, yes of course, but the fact that advocacy includes complicated concepts and words is a nonissue. + +catching_signals: ∆ Very good points; I can see how there are multiple sides to this movement, and admittedly, the only one I'm familiar with is the academic side that argues on the Internet. However, I do think that the movement as a whole is mostly bark, little bite. I'd compare it to OWS, a movement whose ideas I also agreed with. They knew what they wanted to achieve, but lacked leadership (a ""leaderless movement"" is doomed from the start, imo) and a clear plan, so it wasn't productive. However, at least they were getting out in the real world and engaging in activism. I'd like to hear more about education and hands-on activism among ""SJWs"" (again, for lack of a better term)." +"wanderlust712: Monogamy is meaningful to many people. It's a symbol of commitment to each other. I don't have sex with other people, not because my husband is controlling or possessive, but because I've promised not to have sex with anyone but him. If I did and he got upset, it would be because I've broken that promise. It would be the same in reverse. + +Relationships are frequently about commitments to each other. It makes me happy that my husband and I have something so special that we don't share it with anyone else. The fact that we don't have sex with other brings us closer together. It wouldn't make either of us happy to cheapen that. + +And ultimately, if people are happy being monogamous, who are you to tell them that they shouldn't be? +NotVeryAffective: &#8710; So the commitment to monogamy has value in itself. This was insightful to me. How would this be different if you had a commitment to, say, never go to the gym with anyone else, or never watch television with anyone else, or any other activity you can think of? How is sex a special activity with respect to the importance of commitment?" +"slf1452: I would like to think that you are correct in your expectations of the Chief Technology Officer route. One important aspect to consider is the sheer amount of time you have to develop your career. + +If you are trying to make your first million by age X, or be the youngest Y in the field of Z, then you don't But honestly, who cares? + +Unless you have an outrageously specific life goal in mind (like developing the cure for some disease, or going to Mars), then you really don't have to focus so intensely on the time component by itself. + +Consider the following scenario: + +You view time as equal to money, so wasting your time is wasting your earning potential. This has prevented you from socializing, making friends, enjoying your existence. However, this mindset has also obscured potential opportunities for you that you may not normally be exposed to. + +You may find that by traveling to Nicaragua on a vacation, it strikes you that you can develop an easy solution to some problem you see there. Or perhaps after having some beers with some people in a hostel in Germany, you realize that the your niche expertise in your field of technology is underrepresented in the German market, and your efforts there could advance your career at a faster pace than what you can find in America. These are just examples. The main point is that you have arbitrarily chosen one limited route, and done the cost/benefit analysis on that choice alone, without taking the time to consider a wider array of options. + +Circling back to your time = money scenario, this expanded worldview allows you to retain your instilled sense of the value of time, but can show you that you are ""Wasting your time"" by only considering one life path, even if there are others that could lead to a higher earning potential and better enjoyment of life. + +Additionally, ask anyone in the business world about how EVERYTHING works, and they will all tell you that personal connections are hugely important. By not making personal connections and not building social and professional networks, you are pigeonholing your career potential. You may have the Ph.D, but what happens when you are going up for a position against another reasonably qualified person whom the recruiter gets along with better? You will miss it. + +So if you need to, you could actually recategorize your time spent socializing as ""job training"", because no one would argue that social skills are irrelevant in a leadership position. They are essential. So stop wasting your time and go have fun and socialize with people, you will need the skills later. +Ryien: You are so right. I did set my own imaginary timeline where I have to get my PhD by age X, and get this specific job by age Y. + +It may also be that I have a high competition mindset compared to my peers and what family and others expect out of me. This external pressure must be the driving factor, not necessarily my mindset then. + +I did actually try focusing on socializing for professional development, but I was unable to balance it. I started socializing with a few new friends and got attached to the point of dropping all of my work to see them and hang out with them. Another factor is my parents consistently bugging me that every time I go out and hang out, I am spending money, and i feel guilty of this. + +&#8710; " +"childfree2014: Improving the weakest, slowest, nodes of network is not the most cost effective method for improving the entire network. Investing in network upgrades depends on the function of the nodes. + +Take the connection between Netflix and your local ISP. This may be the fastest connection but increasing usage results in the connection not meeting demand. So investing in upgrading ths connection may be the most cost effective upgrade. + +Other network connections, between credit card terminals and credit card processing, may be the slowest but don't need to be any faster and don't need to be improved since they serve their function. +SolFreer: &#8710; Sorry for the delay. You have definitely convinced me that my analogy is an over-simplification, because, yes, upgrading a slow-node that isn't actually a bottle-neck isn't effective. + + However, I would adjust my view now to say that if a slow node isn't being bottle-necked it's because it's in an effective 'dead zone' and we have an earlier bottle-neck preventing demand in this region (say the individual lives in a poor area with bad education), and what needs to happen is to upgrade this whole region, removing bottlenecks. + +So, my view is essentially now that one needs to focus on upgrading the slowest 'zones' of the network and demand will follow. Bring education and services to the disadvantaged communities, bring jobs there and it will be an investment in that region that will pay off for the whole network. CMV" +"James_McNulty: It isn't the end of the song, but the end of the second verse on Kendrick Lamar's [Sing About Me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WQV_cULobA) (second verse ends at ~3:45) is a great example of how to use fade outs artistically. Especially when juxtaposed with the abrupt end of the first verse. + +That song is off Kendrick's album, *Good Kid M.A.A.D. City*. It's a concept album exploring a coming of age in a dangerous environment. The album is very stream-of-consciousness, and uses fade-in/fade-out to move between songs and skits. In just the track above, there are several fades and cuts which help move between the different ""scenes"" of the song (and album). + +I'm not defending all fade-outs. But I think that's an example of them being used very stylistically, and to great effect. +minerva_qw: That was a skillfully used fade, but I'm still not sure that applies to this CMV, since it was used as a transition and not a way to wrap things up. Enjoyed the song, though!" +"[deleted]: The issue of acknowledgment of that level of responsibility does create issues of shifting blame in legal evaluation and in evaluation of laws and their merit. If they share responsibility, for creating a situation where the law could be broken, should only one of them have to shoulder the responsibility for being the actively aggressive party in the law being broken? It's just safer for society to view it the way it does. The potential for exploitation is too great. +yiman: &#8710; + +I like this argument. It is reasonable. I hasn't changed my mind because you can't argue that something should not be acknowledged because it has the **potential for exploitation**. + +By the same reasoning. You can argue that we should not invent the cure for cancer because it can be exploited by a large pharmaceutical company. +" +"GameboyPATH: >Firstly let me say that this is my first post in this sub, and I'm hoping that it's the correct place. + +You're in the right place. Welcome! + +Have you ever watched [the episode of South Park](http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s05e02-it-hits-the-fan) where everyone found it publicly acceptable to say ""shit"", and the result was everyone started saying it without a care? The message of the story was that swearing carries with it a significant emotional strength. Swearing is ""strong language"" because it's used only sparingly to express strong emotion or to reduce inflicted pain or stress. + +So when swearing is used commonly, the strong feelings associated with it are lost, since no one is going to infer strong emotion from a word that's commonly used. If you (and society around you) swear a lot from the minor inconveniences, what language would you use if you experienced tremendous injustice and felt significant rage and inner pain? + +What's this have to do with kids? We want to encourage kids to have an expansive vocabulary so that they can adequately express themselves and convey their thoughts and feelings. Teaching a kid to swear is akin to giving the kid the trump card. Why should they learn or use broader language to understand or express their negative feelings when they can just complain about the fucking bitch who can't do shit? + +In short, if you'd trust your children with ice cream in hopes that they'd eat it only in moderation (and in the context of a broader array of healthier foods), you could teach them swearing. Otherwise, give them time to understand moderation and the effects of language on others. +Kaleb1983: Wow.. that actually makes a lot of sense. I never really thought about it like that, thank you. + +I think I'm really going to like this sub. I just posted a controversial opinion and got a well thought out and logical response instead of a down vote :)." +"scottevil110: It is perfectly logical. This is true. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. + +However, the right that homosexuals are fighting for is the right to marry whomever they *choose*, not someone of the opposite sex. **That** is the right that they lack that heterosexual people are given. + + +razorbeamz: ∆ + +That makes sense. It's a logical argument, but it's not what the argument is about. I wonder if someone could come up with a similar argument about a different social issue to show how dumb the argument is." +"Glares: I've been told [this](http://i.imgur.com/ihTnzCw.jpg) is an accurate description of depression by [people here](http://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/1eo27d/a_letter_about_depression/). I know the style of it may be confirming to your ""over-dramatic"" feelings but just try to take it for the message. I felt the same way as you but reading this changed me. +andrwarrior: ∆ + +That picture teared me up. It's a beautiful analogy, and paints the feelings quite plainly to me. Thank you." +"[deleted]: >We were surprised to discover that **being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution** levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns,"" said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. ""For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke."" + +>**""Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower,"" Klepeis added.** [link](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html) + +All you have to do is be about six or more feet away and none of this matters. You seems to imply that no smoker should ever smoke in a public outdoor area, but if that smoker is say 10 feet away from all other people, then it is perfectly fine to smoke in that public area. +Timwi: ∆ + +I’m awarding you a delta because the source you provided helped in /u/garnteller’s argument which partly changed my view." +"dtiftw: What do you define as a ""GMO"" that needs to be labeled, and what information would you like to see on the label? + +Secondly, what testing would you like to see that isn't currently being done? + +And I will challenge specifically the idea that anyone has said that GMOs are ""completely safe"" or that we should accept them ""no questions asked."" I can't think of any organization, company, or scientist who has made those claims. +MagicSpaceMan: To be honest, I don't really know enough about it to really make an informed opinion on what specifically should be the threshold for labeling. + +Same goes for testing. I don't really know much about the degrees of testing that are being done, I just think that there should be solid evidence that we aren't doing significant harm to the public before we allow them to be distributed to the general public without any sort of warning or label. + +I may have used the wrong terms portraying how GMOs have entered the general food supply, but nonetheless, it seems to me like GMOs are extremely prevalent in today's food supply. I will do a bit of research to see if I can find any long term studies, or at least to gauge the general amount and consensus of studies." +"garnteller: Generally, when you are in a discriminated against minority, you've got two choices: try to blend in or take ownership of the stereotype. + +There's nothing wrong at all with you just being you, and wanting your sexual preference to be treated no different than being left handed - you're different than the majority, and you do things a little differently than they do, but no big deal. + +But the other approach is to say ""you think *that's* effeminate? I'll show you effeminate!"" (Not that I think gays are effeminate, but that that was the stereotype). + +I'm also enough that when I was young, when people would say, ""You know Bill? I just found out that *he's gay*"" - they made sure to whisper the last word. (Or giggle if they were assholes). Being ""out"" just wasn't done. + +But there were enclaves - Provincetown, Fire Island, San Francisco - where there were gay communities. Instead of having to hide who you were, you could delight in your identity, surrounded by others like you. And part of that was ""acting gay"", making sure that the midwestern tourists who stumbled in would be shocked that such godless behavior would be allowed. + +Things are a hell of a lot better than they were then, but I don't need to tell you there's still a long way to go. Being flamboyant is just a way to revel in being what the bigots hate - to say, ""I'm going to be incredibly gay, and you're just going to have to deal with it because we're here to stay"". + +Again, no value judgements about whether one way or the other is better, but I don't blame people for saying they are done with trying not to be noticed. +EmperorDuck: I totally agree with you that communities like that are absolutely beneficial, despite the abundance of the stereotype, for inclusiveness, for having a place that doesn't tell you it's wrong. + +That said, I still don't see how it's beneficial to be combative towards bigots like that. I don't see how it's beneficial to, again, act like a freak. It certainly doesn't show me that the consensus is to treat them like human beings. + +Sure, you're getting a chuckle on behalf of the bigots that would hate you anyways, but it makes the movement look petty. And others look at it -- even if they agree -- like someone's just making an immature dig, an immature response towards immaturity or a more conservative belief system. + +It flies in the face of humanism/equality to target people like that, to display this freakish treatment, too. It'd be much better to accept that they don't believe in what you do and just go with it, continuing to be the way you are respectfully. Show up for protests to get equal rights. Show numbers and (relatively) normal behavior. Be respectful and open. Display the sexuality as, like you said, being left handed, being something some people are rather than being a disrespectful, immature freak who rollerskates around in only neon shorts, being loud, obnoxious, and overly-sexual in response to people who are bigoted or hateful." +"jsmooth7: I would suggest you read these two posts, that describes Allie Brosh's experiences with depression. + +- http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2011/10/adventures-in-depression.html + +- http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2013/05/depression-part-two.html + +I think the problem here is you are assuming people are depressed for a reason, but that is frequently not the case. Sometimes people just become depressed for absolutely no reason. + +For example you said you can ""follow your passion."" What if one day you found you just felt nothing, even when doing something you used to enjoy? What would you do then? +RANDOM_ASIAN_GIRL: Thanks for the links, I have read them already. + +>What if one day you found you just felt nothing, even when doing something you used to enjoy? + +That's just the nature of human beings. If you eat your favorite meal every day, you'll get bored of it after a while. There is no solution that fits everyone, but proactively trying to find something else to enjoy, preferably many things, seems like a good idea." +"garnteller: I think this is the crux of your post: + +>Although there may be a few exceptions to this, the majority of modern country is awful, redundant, and lacks any sort of meaning. + +Can you honestly say that this doesn't apply to mainstream pop, rock, rap or anything else? While we're at it, it also applies to movies, TV, books, subreddits, video games, etc, etc. + +I think the problem isn't that country is mostly crap - it's that it's mostly crap - and you don't personally like the stuff that isn't crap. + +Which is fine, but that's really about your personal taste, not the industry as a whole, as separate from any other artistic endeavor. + + +vTheCurrentEvent: > Can you honestly say that this doesn't apply to mainstream pop, rock, rap or anything else? While we're at it, it also applies to movies, TV, books, subreddits, video games, etc, etc. + +Yes, however, it may apply to contemporary country music the most relative to other genres of music. Though it is hard to debate such a matter, simply because of personal opinions. + +Regardless, after reading this comment I've concluded that this view is rather silly to debate, simply because of the lack of facts to back up either side. ∆" +"mizz_kittay: Well I *think* these people actually do feel humbled by their great experiences. They experience something amazing and great that the vast majority of human beings will never get to experience, and it makes them feel guilty. They don't feel like they are some extraordinary special person who deserves this experience while other humans don't deserve to experience it... rather, they think *all* humans deserve to experience it and they feel guilty that only they get to experience it. Coming to terms with this guilt and accepting that this is just the luck of the draw that is life and you aren't anything special even though you get to do this special thing *is* ""humbling."" If the people you refer to use it like that, then they're using it properly. +LiveBeef: &#8710; here and with superkamiokande's followup. See my reply on their comment for more" +"scottevil110: The silence itself does nothing, you're right, but peer pressure is a powerful force, especially at that age, and this is a case where it can be harnessed for some positive impact. + +Growing up where I did, disapproval of homosexuality was ""normal"". It was just expected that you thought gay people were bad, and no one reacted negatively at all if you went around saying it to anyone who would listen. + +Seeing that that's not the case, that a lot of people DO support gay rights, is a powerful piece of information. I was never religious, so I didn't get on board with the whole hating gay people thing, but that was a big shock when I got to college, realizing that it was okay to outwardly support gay rights, because *other* people supported it. + +So that's what the day of silence can accomplish. Whether it's more or less effective than any other method, I don't know, but the point is showing people that supporting gay rights IS the norm, and not the exception. +ebol4anthr4x: ∆ + +I misunderstood my own view, this post helped me clear up my thoughts. I agree that the Day of Silence demonstrates that many people support LGBT rights, which is beneficial for the movement. Delta awarded for making me realize that. + +My issue with the movement (which I did not realize when I posted this) is that it does nothing to combat bullying in general. If you make it unacceptable for kids to be bullied for being gay, bullies will switch back to one of the other timeless insults they've been using for as long as kids have been assholes to each other, like ""you're too fat,"" ""too skinny,"" ""too tall,"" ""too smart,"" etc. + +In other words, bullying will still exist, even if the LGBT movement is successful in attaining their goals. The Day of Silence fails to address why bullying exists, and the environmental factors that lead kids to attack each other. + +Peer pressuring each other into being nice all the time doesn't get to the root of the problem; it doesn't keep his alcoholic father from beating him. It just removes an outlet for the bully's pent up anger. That isn't to say that bullying is an appropriate outlet, but when you take away one outlet, they will just find another. + +To state my issue with the Day of Silence more succinctly... it is too single-minded. They're simply making bullying someone else's problem to deal with. If it's not a trans kids being bullied, then, as someone said below, it's ""the fat kids, nerds, kids with glasses, kids with red hair, kids with pimples, orphans, or kids with braces."" We need to address the root cause of bullying in general." +"mrrp: Why do you support the manufacturer > dealer > consumer model when you could support the manufacturer > wholesale dealer > retail dealer > consumer model? Wouldn't that create even more opportunities for profit? + +Why not mandate that each car pass through a dozen dealers before it can be sold to the consumer? Any why not support this ""dozen dealer"" model for every single product which is sold in the United States? Imagine how great that would be for the economy! Can you think of any products which shouldn't have to go through a dozen dealers? If so, what's your rationale? +jacksrdtt: That might but realistically speaking, somewhere along the line it would become unpractical and unprofitable. When you have a product with a msrp of 70,000$ there is good money to be made unless it goes through a bunch of middle men like that then nobody would make any profit especially since a products like this dont move in very high volumes." +"turtleintegral: > real harassment + +[Sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm). Sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat-callers are doing. + +> It is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue. + +Many women do not take what you are calling ""compliments"" and ""greetings"" as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex. The people in the NYC video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use ""compliments"" and ""greetings"" on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them. [Sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm) includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat-callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of ""real harassment."" It also reeks of a ""there are starving kids in Africa"" type of argument. + +> It disrupts normal social dynamics between people. + +Yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic. In fact, it seems rather rude. Personally, I think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them. You have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation. + +> It is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them. + +There's a time and a place for that. Shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place. + +> It will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they don’t have any problem even with real harassment. + +It will tell well-meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it isn't. Furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop. And yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who don't give a fuck and will still catcall, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to lower the amounts of catcalling. + +The point of the NYC video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as ""compliments"" or ""greetings"" and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable. I think it's best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have. + +> Radical feminists think that approaching a woman you don’t know should automatically be characterized as harassment. + +This is a total strawman argument. Feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment. Also, I would like to hear what your definition of ""radical feminist"" is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment. +TheChangingWays: &#8710; + +> This is a total strawman argument. Feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment. Also, I would like to hear what your definition of ""radical feminist"" is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment. + +I take back my statement that “radical feminists think that approaching a woman you don’t know should automatically be characterized as harassment”. + +I don’t know enough about feminism and feminists to make that statement. I award delta for that part of discussion. +" +"convoces: The idea that high death rate, such as one caused by a ""big Plague"" will curb population growth is false. + +In fact, the opposite is true, as a country addresses and *reduces* their death rate; their population growth actually *falls* as a result of societal and cultural decisions to have less children. This has been demonstrated cross-culturally and worldwide. + +If anything, a big Plague will *cause* greater rates of population growth. + +For more info, see Bill Gates debunking the myth of overpopulation here: http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three +elderstahl: Thanks for the link. really appreciate it. +I was looking for something like a statistical answer, which I got in the Hans Roslings video on the mentioned link. + +The last sentence of the video is kind of scary. the longer 4 or more children family situation persists, the longer entire world will live in the misery. + +My point for this post was there are very few attempts are being made to change this situation." +"IIIBlackhartIII: I think it's a very simplistic idea that solving our issues comes down to having a smaller population. Most of our issues in the modern world are very multi-dimensional, and population is but a single factor. Pair that with the fact that [most people in the world live in some kind of poverty](http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats), and the[ global population trend shows that there's more people in underdeveloped nations than first world countries](http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx), and I don't think your solution would be the perfect answer you think it is. +___ +#As direct responses to your categories, however: + +##Global Warming/Ecological Impact: + +The fact that most of the world is not highly developed shows that a lot of this pollution comes not from a bigger population, but from more developed regions with higher population density. There are plenty of ways to cut down on pollution without necessarily reducing population size. There are pushes for green energy, more efficient technologies, tighter regulations on corporate environmental practices, pushes for recycling, mass transit and carpooling, electric cars, etc... By reducing the population, you might potentially slow the rate of development, but the issue of global warming is a cumulative effect of emissions over time. We'd still have to deal with the environmental changes, but perhaps we'd have more time to deal with it. That's more a bandaid fix than a solution outright. + +##Global Energy/Food Shortage: + +In terms of energy production and food supplies... we actually aren't doing that bad in the world. The only issue is that [developed nations hoard their resources](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland), leading to starvation in regions like Africa and much of Asia. There was a great post over on /r/theydidthemath; and an [amazing comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qzts1/request_how_much_money_would_it_cost_the_citizens/cnb3apd) which calculated that first world countries only make up about 12% of the population, and even still it would only cost us 9¢ a day to end world hunger, or less than 5% of the United States annual military spending. + +For the energy part of this equation, we already have limitless resources for power (e.g. the sun, hydroelectrics, wind farms, etc...) we just need more pushes to actually pursue this technology, which is not going to make OPEC happy, but they do not represent the best interests of humanity in the long term. + +##War: + +Reducing population isn't going to end violence or war any time soon. We've had wars throughout the history of humanity, even when the distances were great between peoples. Population may increase the relative stress of resource distribution, but with how technology has offset that process, it really comes down to violence, diplomacy, and greed. And as above with the effects of global warming; we're going to use up our resources eventually. The issue is not to try and slow the bleed, it's to explore other options to keep our growth sustainable. Looking towards alternative materials, recycling, asteroid mining, etc... + +##Epidemic: + +We're already pursuing herd immunity and we've been able to destroy diseases like small pox in the past. Despite what the crazy anti-vaxxers might try to tell you, vaccinations are protecting our population from outbreaks. That said, increased population is a concern, but only if the health standards are affected by this increase in population. If living in sanitary conditions, the number of people is less important that the treatment received for illness. And, with the interconnection of the world, while you may reduce the overall population, the requirement for corporations, businesses, and interaction would lead to greater contact overall. The greatest threat in terms of epidemic and pandemic really is transportation, and how these diseases can ride on ships, planes, and trains to spread themselves rapidly. Population is only one factor. + +##Psychological issues: + +While there may be some stress from living in a big city, I don't think you can attribute all mental health issues, or indeed most, just to population side. Setting aside the fact that there are plenty of extroverts who would thrive in a more populous region, those who are under stresses that lead to depression and other mental illness are often driven there not by the number of people around them, but by the societal pressures that population brings. Competing for jobs, dealing with negative advertisements and peer pressure, feeling threatened by certain people, trying to support ones self. It's more about quality than quantity. +turboboob: Reading back through, your response and the response from /u/blackflag415 (after reading most of the night about Malthusian checks and mega fauna) have at least convinced me that I need to learn more about my opinion before my view can be changed. &#8710;" +"KuulGryphun: Why shouldn't a store be allowed to deny to sell anything to whomever they want? + +Lets say you started a lemonade stand on the street. Are you telling me you want to be legally bound to sell lemonade to anyone who walks up to your stand, no matter what? + +Note: I want an answer to this from OP, I know very well what a possible answer is. + +> I am still denied the right to buy the game + +Why do you believe you have such a right? +fiachraaa_: ∆ - I've realised that the business is not obliged to sell to me - they can make their own decision and do what they feel is right for their business." +"Aftercourse: The problem here is that sex and gender use the same terms. It is simple to come up with concrete terms for sex (pure biology, and what that OED definition covers), because it refers only to what reproductive system(s), if any, one possesses. + +Gender, which is what you seem to be concerned with, is based on internal awareness, and much harder to pin down. ""Male"" and ""Female"" aren't particularly useful as descriptors of gender, as it is a continuum, and these only represent two points. To use an analogy, it's like trying to define car parts as ""front wheels"" and ""rear wheels"". What is a door? A turbocharger? A chapman strut? + +So, male and female have a coherent meaning, but only in terms of sex. When used as gender descriptors, they are incoherent and mostly useless. +rowawat: >So, male and female have a coherent meaning, but only in terms of sex. When used as gender descriptors, they are incoherent and mostly useless. + +I'm not convinced it is socially acceptable to limit definitions of these terms to biological sex. A sentence like ""pregnancy is an issue that affects females [or women],"" for example, would be considered offensive. It is also considered offensive to say that a trans person was ""born (fe)male"" and later transitioned. " +"Nepene: There are many reasons why you might prefer the rectangular cut. + +You note that the triangular cut exposes more middle bread to the air, more food. This is also a downside. If you leave them for a while they will go slightly stale, dry out faster as they are more exposed. For a utilitarian mind which may want a sandwich at any time perpendicular is the way to go. + +The wide and varying width of the triangular cut makes it harder to avoid getting food on your mouth, wasted. As you slide it in it's easier for the edge to hit the corner of your mouth. This can be a big issue for a man in a rush- if you get mayo in your beard it's gonna be hard to get out. + +It's also easier to stack a lot of them. With a rectangle you just put them on top of each other. With a triangle? That's more of an issue. Their floppiness means you can soon have a mess of ugly looking sandwiches falling over one another. + +Triangle sandwiches can often actually lead to more damage. Because of the shape if you put it in a ziplock bad then you tend to draw it out through a corner. This can lead to tearage and slippage of food. + +Provides a consistent dip into soup. With a triangle the wideness often blocks you dipping it deep enough, meaning you have to scrunch it or dip it, eat it, and then dip it again and burn your fingers a bit. A square or rectangle shape which has a consistent width is easier to dip. +k9centipede: You present some interesting arguments for rectangular cuts. + +1) Long term storage: +Yes, I guess you are right that a rectangular cut would be preferable to a triangular cut if you are going a long time between cutting and eating, but it'd be much easier to just leave the sandwich whole and then cut it when you're ready to eat. + +2) Messy when eating: +I don't see how a triangular cut would be any messier than a rectangular cut since you'd still be burying your face is sandwichness as you eat. Unless you're eating the sandwich from one short edge to the other short edge, whole bites at a time, you'd get a messy eating experience either way. And if you're eating a sandwich that way, then you're just bad at eating sandwiches. Unless you have scientific antidotes of that being a standard way of eating sandwiches? + +3) Stacking: +I did some scientific research for that claim by googling 'Stacked Sandwiches' and [this triangular cut stack](http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_images_n300/0015-0603-1710-5953_food_stack_bologna_sandwiches.jpg) not only came up earlier on the page than [this rectangular cut stack](http://www.foodiecrush.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/stacked-sandwiches.jpg) but it has more in the stack. Also, any need to stack sandwiches would be greatly improved by simply putting the sandwiches in a [platter formation](http://www.bakenmo.co.za/wordpress/wp-content/themes/novocane/sandwich-platter.jpg) that best fits triangle cuts. + +4) Transportation: +Hmmmmmmmmm. This might be the strongest argument, as rectangular cuts placed vertically in a ziplock bag allow both halves to be easily removed, while the second triangle cut would have to be fished out. + +5) Dipping: +I think that the experience of dipping a triangle cut is much better than that of a rectangular cut, and the consistent dip the rectangle cut might provide is not enough to make it a better option there, but it would be an acceptable option for that. + +&#8710; you've changed my mind to see that rectangle cuts are ONLY preferable when transportation in a ziplock would be necessary, and that they are a valid option when dipping. " +"BrobaFett: Well the ""alcoholism is a disease"" paradigm is not an excuse for behavior, contrary to popular perception. The way we are taught in medicine to look at alcoholism and other lifestyle diseases is in terms of relative risk. Physiology is important to consider because a great deal of how you respond to even basic, daily routines will have to do with genetics. + +So, while it is fair to suggest (using another analogy) that a great deal of obesity is simply a matter of caloric intake there is a great deal of research to suggest the things that control everything from hormones such as insulin release, adiposity, basal metabolic rate, and other factors controlled by genetics contribute to a wide variety in [weight outcomes](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9403316) + +So how does this apply to alcoholism? + +1. In terms of risk, you are 3-4 times more likely to suffer from alcohol abuse or dependance simply by [having a first degree relative who suffers from alcoholism](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20148778) + +2. Twin studies are particularly powerful studies that compare outcomes between fraternal (twins from two different eggs) and identical (twins which come from the same zygote that has divided into two different embryos). These are important because it controls for things like *lifestyle* or *background* much more effectively. [These studies show that genetics may account for nearly 50% of the risk in developing alcohol abuse and dependence.](http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=173214) + +3. Are you ready for it to get *freaky*? Children of alcoholic parents who are *raised* by non alcoholic adoptive parents *still* retain a risk of developing alcoholism. [Yeah it surprised me, too](http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=490841) + +There's something *else* going on. It's not simply a matter of lifestyle choices. + +So how does it all work? At what point do genetics play a role? For one alcoholics tend to have a [diminished response to alcohol](http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Biological_Psychological_and_Environmental_Predictors_of_the_Alcoholism_Ri/540.html). This appears to precipitate tolerance as users must drink more in order to feel the same effect. Genetic differences in everything from [Alcohol Dehydrogenase](http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/9/1539.long), [Aldehyde dehydrogenase](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03683.x/abstract;jsessionid=A201F2EDF1AB85D1249779E895664FAA.d01t02), which all control how alcohol is metabolized all seem to comport this hypothesis. We even have working, if only partial, models for how alcohol may affect brain chemistry [[1](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=401541)] [[2](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9545991)] down to how it effects [DNA after the fact](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00018-009-0135-y) (Contrary to popular belief, DNA can be, and is, altered throughout our lives). + +So are choices important? + +Of course, but there's good evidence to suggest that genetics also play a **major** hand in some people's risk of developing tolerance, abuse, and (eventually) dependance. But what do we really mean by ""choice"" and ""willpower""? Sure, but what we think is ""willpower"" may not [be all that it seems](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will). At the very least, the choices we make are certainly not *ex nihilo*. + +I hope this helps, if anything, shed some explanation on why some families seem to suffer *much more* than others with regards to alcohol. + +therobbo91: ∆. Seeing the studies you linked made quite a difference, especially when the genetics remained but the environment didn't in the adoptive study. I feel like a lot of this (diminished effect, for one) was something I learned once but forgot. " +"stjohnmccloskey: As one in a similar situation morally I feel similarly, though my concerns are purely hedonistic! I love me some bacon. For your economic concerns i can try to change your view! + +Essentially when you go to a restaurant and order a salad, the restaurant may not notice, but you have made a decision eith your money. If you do that more (or more people do it) the average amount of meat the restaurant buys will drop (probably minutely, but over time the price of meat will go up because demand is going down). + +The same goes for the supermarket. If you buy meat, then the supermarket will continue to buy meet in the same quantity. If you do not, then while the effect might be small, it's small in the right direction and will push the quantity of meat demanded down! + +So while your individual impact is small, it can be small in the right direction or the wrong direction. +I've decided to simply do the better thing, not the best thing, and eat less meat :p i just have such a strong taste for it that until eating vegetarian is a more affordable and *easy* solution, I wont be giving it up altogether! +ScotRead: ∆ Thanks! What was the one lingering doubt in my mind about vegetarianism, so now I'm glad I'll be able to commit when I make the switch. And a little bacon now and then's not the worst thing!" +"sillybonobo: >Theft: copying something can't possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying doesn't do that. + +Thinking about IP violations as theft (defined as depriving someone of their rightfully owned property) is, in my mind, a wrong way to go about it. Ownership of something doesn't just mean you have possession of it, but that you have the right to *control its use.* We talk about violations of IP as ""theft"" when in reality, it is closer to a violation of the right to control the property. + +So if a person has a patent on a widget, he has the right to license and control the use of that widget. If he doesn't think it should be used in, say, weapons manufacturing- he has the right to deny the use of his IP in that field. + +Now say that a weapons company ignores this and uses the widget anyway. He has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget (wherein the thing stolen is the *profit*, not the widget itself). Second, in the *control of the use* of the widget. The weapons manufacturer didn't deprive the inventor of *possession,* but he did deprive the inventor of *control.* + +So while it may not be theft of the property (on your definition of theft), it *is still a violation of property rights.* + +Edit- To the economic utility point: I'm not sure I get your point. The argument in favor of IP is that IP will not be developed without protection for use and profit. This seems clearly correct: say a corporation could steal any patent from any inventor and deprive the inventor of profit or control without fear of reprimand. What incentive would the inventor have to devote time to inventing? What incentive would any person have to do research, when they would not be able to profit from the research. + +>What we do know for sure, if a prohibition on commercial copying is implemented, is that individual rights will be violated. + +How? +RPrevolution: >Ownership of something doesn't just mean you have possession of it, but that you have the right to control its use. + +∆ That's a better way to look at it. + +However, can someone have the right to control the use of something that's not scarce? The whole purpose of property rights is to prevent conflict over scarce goods. + +>Now say that a weapons company ignores this and uses the widget anyway. He has been wronged in two senses: first by loss of profits from the use of his widget (wherein the thing stolen is the profit, not the widget itself). + +Can potential profit be stolen? That seems untenable because, for example, if competitor A takes market share away from B, the potential profit of B (compared to A never existing) is reduced. But that's just business." +"Namemedickles: > Or if you think it should be left for the next person's convenience it would actually make more sense to leave it up if you have more men in your house than women because we pee more often than we poop so the up position will be more necessary. + +Actually this isn't correct. If you have a mixture of women and men, you should include all of the women that need it down to pee, all of the times they need it down to poop *and* all of the times the men need it down to poop. If you do so you might find that it would be more respectful to leave it down on average. +Herpderp409: Okay depending on the proportion of males to females you could be right so I'll award a delta &#8710; because you changed my mind on it actually making more sense to leave it up in that situation. BUT I still think that it makes the most sense to just leave it as you leave it. It takes two seconds to change the position. " +"TOUCHER_OF_SHEEP: Obviously, you don't need to read books to add some fulfillment/enrichment to your life- there's just too many other ways of getting that enrichment these days. + +I'd argue that certain types of stimulus and enjoyment/escapism are only attainable through books, though- I wonder, do you agree with that, and that you're missing out on something due to the fact that you don't enjoy reading, or do you disagree? +owlsrule143: I have gone through all the thoughts you just said in my head. ""There are certain stimulus you can only achieve through reading"" + +Talk about this in more detail, that is the answer I am looking for. A compelling argument for why I should seek that particular stimulus, essentially " +"DHCKris: It objectively does not go against the scientific method. + +Atheism is not a hypothesis. You do not have to ""prove"" that God does not exist, as this is the base assumption. The burden of proof is on the religious to prove that God exists. Atheism rejects hypotheses related to the existence of God on the grounds that they have no evidence. + +Atheism does not have to provide evidence, as it is not making a claim, merely rejecting one. + +Science assumes that absolutely nothing is true unless it can be shown repeatedly in a laboratory through experiments. Show me an experiment that is evidence of a scientific method by which an omnipotent being can create life, and I will believe in God. Otherwise, I will not. I don't have to prove why not, just like I don't have to prove that there isn't a giant, flying toaster spinning around Mars. You and I both know there isn't one unless proven otherwise. +currytacos: But we can prove that there is not a giant toaster going around Mars because we have visual proof. there is no proof saying that God does not exist absence of proof from one party does != proof for another. If you are making absolute statement then you do need proof. + +" +"Seraphtheol: I'm assuming for this CMV you are talking about physician assisted suicide, many prisoners already commit suicide in prison by a variety of means. + +If you are talking about physician assisted suicide, why should prisoners have a right that the vast majority of the population does not? While you might be saving some money off prisoners choosing to end their own life, it seems you might also be incentivizing others looking to end their own life in such a manner to commit crimes to take advantage of this option. +SebasTheBass: I'll specify and try to answer your point. + +>If you are talking about physician assisted suicide, why should prisoners have a right that the vast majority of the population does not? + +Yea I think physician assisted suicide could be a way, they could also hang or shoot the prisoner. So not just that. I do think that in the US people should be able to end their own life via assisted suicide. Prisoners can't really fix the problems they are facing in prison. They have no real escape. + +>it seems you might also be incentivizing others looking to end their own life in such a manner to commit crimes to take advantage of this option. + +And what is the problem with that exactly? As long as they are adult, and not directly harming someone. Why shouldn't they be allowed to put themselves in prison so they can end their life? +" +"Scribbles_: One thing you should know is that virtually every Studio Ghibli film revolves around a coming-of-age plot. The plot throws challenges and quick change at immature characters that are unprepared for it, they must adapt and must be brave and show what's inside, their internal struggle is often emphasized. + +Also every character, good or bad, has motives and development. Yubaba the bathouse owner is not evil just because, she's got a business to run. The witch of the waste is heartbroken and proud, which leads to wrath. Lady Eboshi cared about her town, employing the marginalized lepers, starting nothing short of an industrial revolution, albeit forgetting the damage to the environment. + +The braveness of characters is also rarely your macho western protagonist willing to face and slice million monsters and then self-immolate. The braveness is often displayed by vulnerable characters that have much to lose and don't have the skills or the strength to chop their way to victory, they must be cunning, firm, and rely on their (often newly made) friends if they want to succeed. + +All this combined with the art and the music, like you mentioned, makes just about every Studio Ghibli film a masterpiece. +TheAbjectLol: I knew, boldly breaking this subreddit's rules, that I wouldn't be able to reply within 3 hours when I posted this (as I'm in Australia and I posted just before I went to sleep), so I'm not sure if me replying to this comment will be of much or any use. Nonetheless, I'll give it a shot: + +I have to say that reading through all of the comments that people took time to leave, a great deal has been done to sway my view on this topic. Naturally I'll need to re-watch the films in order to check the swayedness of my view. + +Some people mentioned that I didn't do much to explain what it is about the films that I don't like, or that I was being too technical in my proposition. I did deliberately not go into too much of why I like movies and so on, hoping to leave things more general and open to discussion. You'll also just have to take my words for it that I'm greatly emotionally affected by movies and believe in their gestaltness too as nicely worded by BolshevikMuppet. + +Reading through everyone points here, I look forward to the approaching re-watch. Perhaps finding the films so high on lists like the IMDB top 250 I watched them too technically or mistrustfully the first time, unlike how I'd watch something I stumbled across more organically. + +Almost everyone commented on things like analogy and interesting characters. While I usually watch films with things like this in mind, perhaps I didn't when I set about watching Ghibli for one of any number of reasons. Having a few things pointed out in this respect had been useful. + +If I get a chance I'll reply to these individually to thank you for your time. Things are pretty hectic for me at the moment (perhaps that's why I had the urge to ask this question; via some buried wont for fantasy) so if I don't post individual replies - know I've read everything here and that it's been helpful. + +∆" +"Methodless: I'm not sure what type of insurance you're specifically referring to. But insurance in general is used to cover losses - especially on things you cannot afford. + +I agree with you, that you would not insure something that is worth very little. However, something like auto insurance could lead to protecting you from claims that would otherwise bankrupt you. + +You're measuring a cost benefit analysis. Odds of using vs benefit from using. However, that is not the way it needs to be looked at. + +Let me demonstrate with a numerical example: + +Assume: +your net worth is $100000 +if you get into a car accident, the damages will be over $100000 +the probability of you getting into a car accident is .1% + +A car insurance company would charge you more than .1% * 100000 = $100 to insure you. Your implication (which I agree with) is that the more than $100 (let's assume $200 for the rest of my post) they will charge for insurance is higher than fair. + +Here is why I don't agree with you: +With Insurance: Net worth = $100000 - $200 = $99800 +No Accident (99.9% chance): Net worth = $99800 +Accident (.1% chance): Net worth = $99800 + +Without Insurance: Net worth = $100000 +No Accident (99.9% chance): Net worth = $100000 +Accident (.1% chance): Net worth = $0 + +Would you not rather have a guaranteed net worth of $99800 (instead of $100000) than risk the chance of being completely bankrupt? + + + + +That all having been said, if the numbers are the same and your net worth is 100 million instead of 100000 I can see your perspective as the worst case scenario would not put a large dent in your lifestyle +MeltingDog: ∆ Thanks! This has changed my mind. The maths makes sense. I wont get insurance on everything I have, ever (which I assumed was common practice for everyone) but I will insure things where the loss of it would perhaps send me bankrupt" +"[deleted]: Well, waste is one issue. Nuclear power plants still produce a pretty substantial amount of waste. This probably isn't relevant, since the ""waste"" (in the form of CO2) from fossil fuel power plants is pretty substantial, too. (EDIT: Though, honestly, this is still worth considering considering the nature of the waste. Originally, this read in a way that made the waste seem negligible, and I don't want it to!) + +To an extent, fear is a problem as well - cold war attitudes still make people think that ""nuclear"" means ""extremely dangerous"", even when the technology has gotten much safer. This is very prevalent in America, from what I've seen. People know very little about nuclear power, but they know nuclear bombs almost ended the world. + +A big reason that we're not switching to nuclear power is cost. It's very expensive to switch from the energy sources we're using to nuclear power on a large scale. + +Another big reason is jobs. Many people depend on the oil industry and etc. for work. (EDIT: Check /u/david12scht's post below! It's relevant and you should research economic impacts of technological shifts yourself, too. Still, while we're almost certainly going to be fine after the fossil fuel industry is gone, the fact it's here and providing jobs now *is* relevant as a why as outlined in this post.) + +We don't use them more often because it's scary, expensive and too many people depend on fossil fuels to make their living. + +So yes, we probably should use nuclear power more openly, but it's going to be a very slow process to get to that point because of how depedant we've become on fossil fuels *and* how nuclear power works, right now. These are some of the reasons that, *right now*, we can't. +Geneio42: *Ding Ding Ding* We have a winner. Thanks. Your comment made a really good argument by using both sides and points that I guess I have over looked. Hasn't change my view but rather showed me the other side and has made my opinion a more centralised one. Good job. + +&#8710; <--- Never done this before ~~[Hope this works]~~" +"Dinaverg: So, what exactly are the 'harms' to culture that occur? You must understand, if you read the statements you've made from the perspective that 'turks and muslims' are people with exactly equivalent value to any other human, like Germans and Scandinavians; then things like seeing them outside and having them in your school are not actually harms. So maybe you could clarify the concrete negative effects (to culture in particular, since you mention it) that would not occur if these individuals were German instead of, say Turkish? +TheThing345: As stated: + +> germans being made fun of, for being german, in their own damn country + +Is quite the harm in my eyes. + +Furthermore, (it's a stereotype redneck argument, but still aplies in some cases), especially the romanians do nothing but leech off the government, no searching for work, nothing + +However, +>if these individuals were German instead of, say Turkish + +is a very good argument that I can't really counter though +&#8710;" +"Snafu_Coaxer_2013: This depends on what you're debating. If it's something that requires normative judgements (like a political debate or a philosophical debate), suggesting reading can often be more helpful because it's incredibly difficult to summarise a lengthy argument that is designed to take you on some sort of emotional journey or convince you of a particular value judgement. + +Also, summarised arguments are easy to misinterpret, so if someone has worded an argument particularly clearly and it's not too lengthy, it's often beneficial to refer to it rather than attempt to phrase it in a way that will likely be misinterpreted and you'll be left without a way to properly defend it because you can't find the particular mistake you made +greengreen_grass: It can be helpful, especially once someone has failed once to give the argument, but to not even try..." +"GameboyPATH: The idea that this Earth is supposedly littered with billions of individual consciousnesses is, indeed, a mindblowing thought that's difficult to comprehend. + +But let me counter that with something just as mindblowing. Consider how [small we are in the context of the entire universe](http://htwins.net/scale2/). It's easy to consider human consciousness as significant when it's what we're exposed to our entire lives, but in the grand scheme of the universe, we are merely a speck. Likewise, going small-scale on that interactive page also demonstrates how possible it is for small parts of matter and energy to create something as unique and cool as a human consciousness. It's not impossible to imagine another person as having a mind of their own. Hell, by some theologies of religion and philosophy, our minds are simply individual parts of a greater consciousness. +mrgnostic: &#8710; Convinced but not entirely: Your comment has made me see how everything that I think is incomprehensible is very insignificant to this size to the size of something like VY Canis Majoris (The biggest star currently known of) or even the whole universe as a whole. + +However, I would like to go on and think this is true but I still feel a underlying uncertainty as to how I can comprehend the sheer mass of our universe but still somewhat think that everyone other than me is a so called [Philosophical Zombie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) because of my inability to accept that everyone has a mind that is just as active as myself. + +Thank you very much for that!" +"welcometohere: Who are you following on Twitter? If you follow people that you know are going to start drama, that's what you're going to get. + +You wrote +>[on Reddit] there is a treasure trove of actual news and discussion that can be found. + +You can find tons of news and discussion on Twitter. I follow many news agencies and individual journalists to get news. Ultimately, why do you have to participate? What's so bad about following people to read what they say, but not responding? + +Twitter, like almost all social media, is entirely what **YOU** want it to be. If you want it to be your news source, so be it. If you want it to be the way you find what your friends are up to, so be it. But you really can't blame the platform for the actions of the users. +actionsketch: ∆ + +I think the only way my view can be changed is by using twitter... which is more or less what /u/welcometohere is saying. Twitter isn't *for* anyone, it's more about what you make of it. + +There seems to be two ways to approach twitter... as a custom news source and/or a social networking platform. + +I feel like reddit is a consistently great custom news source while twitter is better in the moment when something big is happening, because people on the scene can tweet and spread their experiences quickly. So news doesn't change my mind. + +The social platform aspect seems to be more about networking. I don't actually know anyone personally who uses twitter between common friends. So, I'm not convinced here either... but then again, maybe I'll find a bunch of friends on twitter that change my mind. This is probably what it's going to take." +"agentxorange127: I think that the state of the world should not necessarily influence your decision to have/not have children. The whole ""the world is getting worse"" idea has been around for all of history. It's just a depressing feature of being an intelligent being (the fact that we have to worry about how our actions affect others). + +Why is the world getting worse? Technology is progressing at a much faster rate. There are no World Wars, no conflicts where hundreds of millions of people die. We hear more ""sad"" things only because we have access to vast amounts of information, more than we have ever had access to before. There are more people, yes, but that seems to not be the reasoning behind you not wanting to have kids (which would be an arguable reason). + +The whole ""the world is going to shit"" is not a great idea to have in your head. Other than the fact it is depressing and doesn't make you have a very good worldview, it is also just not true. People have had that attitude for ages, but the world progresses none the less. That attitude leads to becoming a old-timer who just raves about how much simpler a time it used to be while being completely ignorant of today's society; someone who looks to the past, and not the future. +UnivitedSam: You know, I never looked at it that way. Many people on this thread seem to think that the media has alot to do with my outlook on it. That just because we have access to an extraordinary amount of information can be negative, but should it not also be positive? If I have access to so much information shouldn't the positive and the negative be in equal volumes? Or is it accurate? + +Also, people seem to think that advanced technology is a good thing. Because its gotten to a point where information is so easily accessible, *negative* information can be spread just as easy. Just look at the recent event in Ottawa, it was a Canadian that was radicalized over the internet about the Islamic state which lead to his actions. + +EDIT: Expanding my idea +" +"shibbyhornet82: I think there would still be a place for strip clubs. There are different levels of sexual objectification and different people are morally comfortable with different amounts. One could have made essentially the same argument you're making by saying that Hooters shouldn't have been open when strip clubs were open, because if you're going somewhere for a woman's breasts why not have her wearing as little as possible? Yet Hooters did great business for years. + +Also, I know of married men who think it's somehow funny/novel to hang out in strip clubs, but would never think of physically cheating on their wives - there's a definite line that exists in our culture that ensures that some of the people who want risque entertainment won't patronize brothels. +MordorsFinest: These are some pretty good points. Hooters is a pretty decent example of my argument, its a strip club that offers something extra (food), yet strip clubs are still around...though the hooters girls dont get naked and give lap dances. + +**I'll give you a ∆** +" +"sonofaresiii: It's very difficult to change someone's views on something that is entirely subjective. The answer is: + +City life is preferable to country life, unless you prefer country life more. + +Some people like the more slowed down/relaxed nature of the country. Some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities. Some people like that the country is less crowded. Some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private (ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there's no chance anyone's around for miles to bitch at you for it?). Some people like having lots of animals. Some people like the lack of pseudo-anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well. + +There's really no way to convince you that country life is preferable, because it all comes down to what you personally prefer. The best I can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to *some people.* + +For the record, I love city life and hate country life (I've done both). But I completely understand why some people might prefer country life. +alexskc95: >Some people like that the country is less crowded. Some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private (ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there's no chance anyone's around for miles to bitch at you for it?). Some people like having lots of animals. Some people like the lack of pseudo-anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well. + +Fair enough. I don't consider any of those important, and they're so low on my priority list I didn't even think of them, but for some people, I'm sure they're hugely important. Different people have different priorities and I guess I sometimes have trouble seeing eye-to-eye on that. + +&#8710;" +"KingOfSockPuppets: >I feel as though I'm lying to myself. + +Why? And what 'technical standpoint' are you referring to? Gender is mostly a surface level set of assumptions we make about other people to orient which social norms we should apply when interacting with them. Sure, biology has some influence and in a *very* few realms, might be a concern, but in terms of how we treat people in a day-to-day environment there's no reason trans people are not their gender. +JoMommaa: Mmm I see what you mean. + +In regards to the 'technical standpoint' thing, what I mean is on a biological level - DNA and chromosomes. + + +Basically the way I see it is (using my original example of a man becoming a woman) that this person is ethically a woman and I will refer to her as a woman. But inside, my conscience tells me that this person may now be taken as a woman, but in actuality is a man who has mutilated genitals to resemble a vagina." +"Tentacolt: >The theory of The Patriarchy, as I understand it, says that men have a great deal more control over society than women and use this to the benefit of men and the detriment of women. + +This is a misunderstanding of the theory then. Patriarchy theory is simply that our present day gender roles (for both men and women) are decended from the values of society during institutionalized patriarchy. + +Men are protectors, and providers, women are fragile and motherly etc. etc. + +[This woman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI2yf9aueBA&feature=player_detailpage&t=345) explains patriarchy theory amazingly. +bgaesop: I have now watched this video. It was very good! I am confused, though, because the video seems to be talking about how men and women are both oppressed by the patriarchy, whereas the overwhelming majority of what I have read on this before refers to women as an oppressed class and men as oppressors. + +Still though, &#8710;" +"KuulGryphun: Why shouldn't a store be allowed to deny to sell anything to whomever they want? + +Lets say you started a lemonade stand on the street. Are you telling me you want to be legally bound to sell lemonade to anyone who walks up to your stand, no matter what? + +Note: I want an answer to this from OP, I know very well what a possible answer is. + +> I am still denied the right to buy the game + +Why do you believe you have such a right? +fiachraaa_: I guess you're right. I believe I have a right because there are no laws saying that I shouldn't be allowed to buy the game I guess? But can you see how it annoys people my age? I mean most gamers my age are mature enough for these games. I have the money to buy the game, I haven't done anything wrong (its not the law), but they won't sell me the game because of my age. It just kind of annoys me. + +However I do realise that now from the comments the shop decide how they run their business, and that I shouldn't be complaining if they don't want to sell the game to me. " +"RustyRook: > Am I missing out on good experiences that only a controller can offer? + +Yeah, you're missing out on the subtle immersion that the vibrations from a controller can generate. I played an action game (probably Tomb Raider) a little while ago, and when an explosion took place off-screen, or sometimes during a cut scene, the controller would vibrate. Coupled with the sound design it really added to the feeling of being ""inside"" the game. + +Edit: You mentioned the Batman games. It's been a while since I played them, but I think the controller vibrated a little during a silent takedown, mimicking the thug's struggling. It was cool. It's hard to explain the value of the sensation in its absence, but it did add some extra enjoyment to the game. +JamesDK: Vibration is a cool feature, but is it enough? In my mind, a vibration in the controller doesn't really translate into an action on the screen. It's a little bit of haptic feedback (the way my phone vibrates a little when I touch certain objects), but for things like explosions? I feel like that would be more immersion-breaking than enhancing. Something huge blows up and all I get is a little wrist-wiggle? I don't know if that would really help my enjoyment of the game." +"arjun10: It wasn't too long ago that people of Irish, Italian, and other non-Anglo European ethnicities were treated as second-class citizens in the US. Fast-forward to today--now the ""tribe"" has been extended to include them as White. + +Another example is that of indigenous people in North America. Back in the day, different tribes (i.e. Mi'kmaq and Mowhawk) would fight one another regularly. Fast-forward to today, and while they still have their distinct cultures, they are united under the label of ""indigenous"" or ""native american"". + +Point being, race, ethnicity, and culture are *very* fluid categories, and you just have to have a cursory understanding of history to understand that through collaboration, solidarity, and mutual struggle, these categories can become increasingly blurred and irrelevant. In the context of today's America, I would say that the interests of working-class Black and White folks are much more aligned than the interests of working class White folks and wealthy White elites, and that this can be the basis for overcoming current tensions and perceived differences in race. +Jrlz: This is an excellent response. + +EDIT: Delta removed to continue interesting conversation. + +EDIT 2: Delta reawarded. ∆ +The indigenous people of North America example you raised is a very good example of (literal) tribes uniting. + +I guess progress is slow, and sometimes things regress a little, but the overall trend is positive. I guess if we're all patient, we'll eventually build a more effective, more fair society." +"NaturalSelectorX: I do a little volunteer work with a women's shelter (though I'm a guy), and you will probably find that those shelters offer services for men as well. The shelter I work with has a dedicated facility for women, and partners with hotels for men. This is because there are far more women requiring shelter than men. In this case, there is a legitimate need to keep them separate. + +As far as gyms, I believe that is plainly discriminatory. While I understand the desire for women to workout without men around, that desire does not justify discrimination. If a white person felt in danger around black people, could that person have a whites-only gym? + +If women feel like they are in danger, then gym has failed to create a safe environment for them to work out. A gym could cater to women by having more private workout ""booths"", and a good security presence to achieve the same feeling of safety. A gym can also respond promptly to complaints of inappropriate behavior from members, and then ban them from the facility. + +If the mere presence of a man causes a woman to feel in danger, then the problem lies with the woman. That view of the world is just as prejudicial as a white man being afraid of a black man. We should not cater to it. +the_skeleton_queen: ∆ + +Very convincing to get an opinion from someone who actually works with a shelter that helps men… and you have a lot of great points, especially about how fear doesn't make discrimination justified. Although someone else made a great point about how women might not necessarily feel threatened by men at the gym, but embarrassed. But I think you're absolutely right in saying that if a woman feels threatened, it's because the gym is not creating a safe environment for them. + +I see why there's a market for women-only gyms, but I guess there could be a market in some places for whites-only gyms, or straights-only gyms, and I would think that is wrong… so you have CMV!" +"moonflower: If he is setting this condition as an ultimatum, then technically, you *would* have to sacrifice your current job to continue in the relationship. + +But it's not as simple as that because you want both the job and the relationship, so if he is unwilling to sacrifice his own job and move to your country, then you will have to make the decision as to which one of those you want more. + +It's not sacrificing your *career* though, it's only sacrificing this particular job and switching your career onto a new track. + +\*EDIT: Had a look at you previous posts, you said you only just started this relationship in the beginning of April ... chances are that if you go and live with him, the reality will not live up to the fantasy and it will soon be over ... but you might have to actually go through that to find out for sure otherwise you might always believe that it would have been wonderful if only you could have been together for ever. +mochicken: 1 &#8710; to moonflower " +"aiccia: I don't think anyone is going to argue that you don't have the right to use deadly force when defending your home from an violent intruder. + +The problem in these situations, and which I see in your example, is often the owner starts shooting before visually confirming the violent intent of the intruder. Visually confirming a target is the cardinal first rule in any shooting encounter, whether military, hunting, or self-defense. + +In your example, you clearly state that because your alarm goes off and you hear glass breaking, you're going to automatically assume that danger is imminent. There have been several cases recently where owners shot and killed people banging on their front door when it was only a motorist needing help. + +No one would recommend confirming a target simply because they don't respond to your challenge. Maybe they need medical help and are choking or passing out? Maybe they don't speak English? + + + +garbageraven: A motorist, or someone chokingis not going to break my windows. I don't plan on shooting someone that knocks on my door. But I understand your concern, there needs to be 100% assurance that your life is in danger, correct? " +"stoopydumbut: Dogs only eat poo if you leave poo lying around. That's a reason to not leave poo lying around, no a reason to get rid of a dog. + +When you say ""you"" shouldn't own a dog, do you mean specifically me? Because I don't live in Germany so my dog won't hump your leg on the bus or poop in your park. Those seem to be problems with Germany, not problems with dogs. + +Dogs sometimes kill people, but they also sometimes save people's lives. + +It's true that he consumes resources and produces CO2, but by that reasoning, I shouldn't own anything. +Theobromin: You seem to be one of the considerate dog owners. Unfortunately not all dog owners are considerate. But even the most considerate dog-owning does not change my last three points. +Certain dogs sometimes save lifes. These are trained dogs (not privately owned), which I specifically excluded. The incidents of ""wonder dogs"", who saved the baby from the burning building are too rare to make up for the deaths. + +>I shouldn't own anything. + +This is an reductio ad absurdum. Of course you can own things, but one should ponder the pros and cons of owning certain things. I still think in the case of dog-owning the cons dominate by far. " +"kabukistar: >I actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates. The few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen. + +If there's no official justice system, then there would be nothing to deter people from using violent revenge and angry mob justice when they feel that they have been wronged. And vigilantes, mobs, and revenge seekers tend to be far more violent and hot-blooded than a dispassionate governmental legal system. +parissyndrome1988: ∆ That's a good point. Maybe the real purpose of a justice system is to regulate people's blood lust, and protect the criminal and the order of society, not the victim. People always say the justice system ignores the victim, but maybe it's not really about the victim anyhow. + +Even though IMO punishment is pretty much useless in a civilized society beyond preventing vigilantism, we evolved in a way that makes us want to destroy those who commit acts of harm. Often even if they are not as serious as murder (ie robbery, sex crimes, etc - plenty of people would have them executed too)" +"arcticblue12: And how do you propose to pay for all of this? Sure it's a noble effort that you want to get everyone the help they deserve but this would be a massive effort and require the funding and man power to back it up. Also people have lies where they are, who is to say that you may relocate someone who just recently became homeless and is looking to get bak on their feet. Also you assume that all homeless don't have jobs. I've met quite a few who do work all day and struggle after because they cannot afford housing because they simply do not make enough money. +I_STAB_HIPSTER_FILTH: ∆ + +If I recall, it costs six figures to incarcerate a person in USA. I think some of that money could easily go to treating crazies. + +And I have never met a working homeless person. And while I worked temp jobs (like the lowest quality manual labour) I have not met a single homeless person. Plenty of migrant workers, plenty of illegal ones, but not one homeless. + +But you do have a right point that a person that just lost their livelihood does not deserve to go to jail. Just a few years there was a scam going around Russia where multiple deposits were collected for the same apartment, with forged ownership documents. People give up their savings, get no housing and have nowhere to go. But this is generally rare in the west. And I guess the foreclosure scams are getting increasingly frequent. + +I guess I had a different perspective living in Canada. I forget just how many people do end up on the street and why. Most that I meet are there because they want to be..." +"Hq3473: What about constitutional monarchy? + +All the upside of electing most of your government with a cool extra of having a royal family that is very entertaining, and may even be useful for foreign relations. + +Seems to work for UK, Sweden, Belgium, etc. + +Sweden, Belgium have higher standard of living than US. + +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index +BojackOfCourseMan: OK I hate to split hairs but what are we talking about exactly? + +A constitutional monarch where you have a royal family And a functional parliament Or a monarch that is bound by a constitution? + +I would argue that UK, Sweden, Belgium are all democracies, and that their ""higher standards of living"" have no correlation with their monarchies but rather other features of their democratic systems. + + +Also have you seen this?: + +http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/if-the-uk-was-a-u-s-state-it-would-be-the-second-poorest-behind-alabama-and-before-mississippi/ + +Sure wealth is not necessarily a way to measure quality of life, but my point is UK, Sweden, and Belgium all have their issues as well, and the U.S. has unique problems to deal with that the other nations don't and vice versa. I would say the quality of life in these places and the democratic systems are similar enough that this does not change my view, sorry. + +EDIT: Please ignore the above link, it has been refuted here: http://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/ + +My arguments still stand though." +"PepperoniFire: The issue is that marriage as it stands is basically a default scheme predicated upon that legal status. As you've mentioned, it deals from issues ranging from inheritance to taxes to medical decisions to child custody. These default rules can be modified via prenuptial agreements, but it still stands as a basic package for people with a legally recognized relationship. + +Your suggestion flows from good intentions where couples who want to formalize their romantic relationship create their own contract and dictate its terms. The problem with this is that marriage touches on so many aspects - [over 1,000 federal laws alone](http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf) ([2004 update](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf)) - that building it from the ground up is cumbersome, time consuming, and probably expensive to the extent it would require a lawyer. You would be asking people to contemplate all the circumstances and likelihoods that matrimonial law effectively does already by virtue of having the same issues arise for hundreds of years. + +In a way, marriage functions as a very egalitarian institution because it is within easy reach of broad swaths of people. For ~$40.00 you can get what you or an attorney would (for a fee) have to draft. You would have to hope it contemplates all of the same things and that every clause is legally enforceable. Making it more costly - actually (legal fees and associated costs) and through time/effort spent - makes marriage far less accessible. We already have an access-to-justice problem. Low-income people can't get the legal representation they need, particularly with civil issues, because it's too costly and pro bono/legal aid societies can't effectively pick up the slack. + +Requiring people to create marriage-like agreements piecemeal and then be on the alert to update it every time their circumstance changes is not only problematic generally, but will just exacerbate this access issue and predominantly affect people in lower socioeconomic circles. Even when we talk about boilerplate forms one can download off the Internet, these oftentimes fall short and would still require the creation and formalization (probably notarized too) of each and every right and responsibility flowing from marriage as it stands today. + +Also, this ignores another issue: non-marital laws still work in conjunction with and refer to marital status. Social Security is not matrimonial law but it still creates benefits based on marital status. Inheritance law is not matrimonial law but it still creates rights and presumptions based on marital status. Evidence law is not matrimonial law but it still creates privileges based on marital status. Bearing this in mind: + +1. You can't just get the government 'out of marriage' by turning it into a traditional contractual relationship because you would still have to get rid of statutorily created rights/benefits/privileges/presumptions that were drafted independently, and; + +2. Since it's unlikely that we'll just reform these laws piecemeal, each individual law can still dictate what kind of relationships it chooses to acknowledges for the purpose of that statute, i.e., still discriminate against 'peculiar' kinds of relationships. We saw (2) arise when some states legalized gay marriage but those couples only had equal status in state law, not federal law, pre-*Windsor*. You (general you) and your four partners can draft your contract, but the SSA and Congress can still be jerks and say their death benefits are only for monogamous two-party couples so long as they have a rational basis for it. + +Moreover, the law that would govern traditional contracts is ill-suited for the nature of marriage. Contract law is designed to facilitate *arms-length* economic transactions to allow the economic pie to grow bigger. It is enforced, in part, by the state. Marriage is by definition intimate. We don't breach marriages. We don't sue our partners for damages if things don't work out. Instead, we have equitable dissolution, the parameters of which are outlined primarily by state marriage (not contract) laws. It was created to ensure both parties leave in the best way possible (even if it is imperfect) rather than ""making them pay."" Sure, we could keep these rules, but then we'd be circling right back to a special body of law that caters to the unique circumstances arising out of marriage that we just don't care about in a standard contracts. + +If we're going to discuss marriage equality between monogamous and non-monogamous couples, it would probably be better to do things with an eye towards reform of present marriage law rather than non-monogamous couples deferring to recreating a marriage-like scenario from the ground up. This is what gay and lesbian couples have historically had to do and there is a reason they pushed for marriage equality beyond the ability to make a solemn, public declaration, and that's because the extent to which that status affects the partners is massive. + +Marriage creates sensible rights, defined contours and presumptions for important issues of natural consequence when we invest our lives, finances and future into a community of interests. Getting government out of it is unlikely to solve its inequities. +Vanbone: First of all, thank you for your well written and thoughtful response. You make a number of very good points, but they seem largely pragmatic, based in the difficulty of changing or re-making the gargantuan system that currently exists. This is certainly valid, but I confess that I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile with my views, which I confess are largely philosophical. + +> Even when we talk about boilerplate forms one can download off the Internet, these oftentimes fall short and would still require the creation and formalization (probably notarized too) of each and every right and responsibility flowing from marriage as it stands today. + +To my view, though I certainly have not dealt in writing contracts professionally, a good deal of society relies on contracts, which are open to customization, but largely standardized. I would envision marriage contracts could be similarly standardized, while still allowing for the individual needs and desires to the participants. + +> We don't breach marriages. We don't sue our partners for damages if things don't work out. Instead, we have equitable dissolution - the parameters of which are outlined primarily by state marriage (not contract) laws - that was created to ensure both parties leave in the best way possible (even if it is imperfect) rather than ""making them pay."" Sure, we could keep these rules, but then we'd be circling right back to a special body of law that caters to the unique circumstances arising out of marriage that we just don't care about in a standard contracts. + +You make a good point here. I suppose on some level you've changed my view - I don't necessarily feel that society should be torn down and reformed so that it's systems no longer take marriage into consideration (though considering the divorce rate, there may be other arguments for that). So perhaps marriage should have, if not more oversight, *different* oversight from traditional contracts. I still believe that the Government should have extremely limited power to regulate who can and cannot enter into a marriage, but that is a strong shift in my view at the least. + +Thank you, I'll award you a delta as soon as I figure out how. + +edit: &#8710; = ∆" +"theconstipator: The thing about ""fat acceptance"" is, its sort of glorifying being unhealthy. You bring up some good points and I'm sorry that you have been mocked for being heavy, but the truth is, being overweight is a terrible lifestyle. Not only because of how it damages your health, but because of the hatred some people have of fat people. You can't make people who hate fat people go away. There will always be mean people. But, unless you have a legitimate reason making it impossible to lose weight, you can stop being mocked by losing weight. + +When you accept the fact that you are overweight, and feel ""comfortable"" in your own skin, you're simply giving people a reason to mock you. I don't have any biases against overweight people but I know people that do will always exist. And by feeling comfortable overweight, you're letting yourself be mocked, as opposed to taking a stand. The more comfortable you are being far, the fatter you will get and the more insults you will receive. + + + +**TL;DR**: The reason it is bad to be comfortable with being fat is the fact that having that mindset and continuing to ""let yourself go"" will make you get more insults. When you accept your body as overweight, you're justing proving that the people who insult you were right. Living the ""fat lifestyle"" includes being mocked, which is why you should not want to live life like that. +NotALameUsername: Here's my reply to /u/permabulkjelly: + +>I think you and /u/theconstipator have convinced me. I'm still tempted to argue, but I can see where you're coming from with these points. While I would love for fat acceptance to be a thing simply so we aren't scorned and mocked, mean and rude people simply won't go away and fat acceptance could potentially encourage unhealthiness. I suppose what I want isn't necessarily ""fat acceptance"" (though we do get an awful lot of flak), but just acceptance for everyone. Acceptance for people of all shapes, sizes, and colors (which plenty of people want), but which will unfortunately never happen and this is just wishful thinking. + +>If everyone had the necessary willpower and means to stay healthy even *with* fat acceptance, it could be a viable option, but that just won't happen (because some people would definitely misunderstand it as ""I can let myself go now!""). + +Thanks. &#8710;" +"mfanyafujo: > We just need to accept ourselves as we are + +Maybe that is what your friends are doing. Just because someone identifies as a certain gender doesn't mean that is how they truly feel inside. Perhaps they didn't even realize that there was a term for how they felt. Perhaps they spent their entire lives thinking that there was something wrong with them, and when they finally realized that there was a whole group of people who felt the same way, they were elated. It's not crazy, it's not seeking attention, and it's certainly not so they can feel ""special."" It's about finding out that they aren't broken, they are just different. +Kevrake: ∆ + +That's a good point. I guess perhaps that I'm too quick to judge, when someone might have actually been feeling that way all of their lives. I guess I just find that there are some differences, because I know my friends, and they go through phases, and I feel/felt as though this was just a phase of theirs. In reality, they may actually have felt this way all their lives, so I should treat their decisions with more respect. Thanks for the comment." +"Hq3473: The politicians WOULD go for it. + +Because potential success would be a HUGE publicity coup. + +Heck, even failure would be a significant publicity coup, because politicians would get to talk about those brave astronauts who sacrificed themselves for a great goal. + +You know what would not look good? Leaving Watney to die without apparently trying to do anything about it. + +The politicians would have everything to gain by trying to save Watney, and almost nothing to lose. +huadpe: >Heck, even failure would be a significant publicity coup, because politicians would get to talk about those brave astronauts who sacrificed themselves for a great goal. + +I think this is the point that pushed me over the edge on it. I was more thinking that the other astronauts dying would be a ""you needlessly killed 5 people"" thing. But you're right that it could be spun. + +∆ + +That said, I still think it would be the President making the calls, not the NASA director for Mars operations." +"eye_patch_willy: It appears that the Oregon legislature chose to recognize same sex couples as a protected class and passed laws that made denying service to them illegal the same way that denying service to people on account of their race is illegal. I don't see how making a cake enables sodomy, I really don't know why that word even appears in this context since it's both irrelevant and even if it were, inapplicable in the linked situation since that deals with two women. + +By the way, there was no court involvement. This was a hearing conducted by the Oregon Board of Labor. Rights are only as strong as people's willingness to fight for them and assert them when those rights are violated. + +All that said, from my perspective, this amount is high if it is truly only for emotional distress. If this amount is also meant to be punitive, then it makes a little more sense. For the record, and I just checked, Oregon only allocates about 30% of the punitive damage award to the prevailing party, the rest is allocated to a state fund for low income legal aid in the State. +GnosticTemplar: ∆ + +That makes... a little more sense, although the amount is no less ridiculous. I still don't see how this situation is analagous to Jim Crow, but I know it'll open up a slippery slope to actual Jim Crow against homosexuals. +" +"PepperoniFire: >Why can't a private business make the same decision? + +Because, when we talk about businesses, we're usually talking about conglomerates that have formally incorporated in one way or the other. Incorporation is a creature of statute; it's created by the government. It's more reasonable for the government to attach strings on the benefits associated with incorporation than it is to you as an individual because they're giving the business some fancy treatment. + +The government hasn't bestowed any peculiar status to you, personally. It has bestowed a status upon most businesses, who are insulated from traditional personal liability, can choose from a myriad of different tax schemes, enter contracts as a business, and so on. +glwilliams4: This is a good point. To be honest, I'm not sure what all happens legally speaking when a business is started. Just curious, does someone selling something from their own house, such as an Esty store, constitute being a business? At what point legally does an entity become a business? I'm assuming if I have a yard sale and even pay people to help me that that isn't considered a business. I wonder where that line starts. + +If the perks of having a ""legally sanctioned"" business are as you say, then I could definitely see why the government can have a say in who you give service to." +"BenIncognito: This is a huge generalization of both men and women. For some people, sex is a take it or leave it type of thing. For others, it is something more akin to a need. + +I know plenty of women who are sex-positive and need to have sex in order to feel fulfilled and satisfied in their relationships. I know men who don't need to have sex on some kind of regular basis. + +I think this perception of yours stems mostly from societal expectations of both men and women. Men are raised to feel like they should see sex as some kind of insatiable hunger (boys being boys). Where as women are raised to view sex as something damaging to them and that they should strive to save for their one true love (see: the idea that vaginas can be stretched out by too much sex to uselessness). +jherazob: I've always considered those ideas ridiculous and maybe even offensive, but I'm relating my experience" +"ExploreMeDora: It's impossible for anyone to argue whether or not **you** could win in a fight against a dog or a wolf. We don't know you nor have you ever fought a dog or a wolf. The greater question is whether or not a, ""full grown adult male could fight and overpower a dog of just about any size?"" You proposed this in your original post. To answer that question: No. It completely depends on the individual and the situation. + +* A person may legitimately be weak or cowardly and the dog could be stronger and more ferocious. +* There are some big dogs that can be very vicious and won't give up. +* As people tire or get injured they become weaker. Dogs and most animals have higher stamina than people. They can run faster and longer and not grow weary. +* Dogs and animals have a greater tolerance to pain. A person may smash his head against a door and get a concussion or fall to the ground in pain. A dog may do the same and will bounce back with no care or injury. +* The person may not take the situation seriously and doesn't want to harm the animal. Too late, it just crushed your throat with its jaws. + +Also, I would probably make the argument that you couldn't defeat a wolf. I don't know you personally but I don't know many people who could defeat a wolf. A lot of times it may come down to the first blow. If the animal strikes first and chomps down on you hard, you're going to be in excruciating pain and your main focus will probably be getting the animal off instead of trying to kill it in that moment. You'll be losing blood, getting tired, and getting weaker as this goes on. Even if you strike the first blow, the wolf may snap back and get you. While you have to think about how to actually kill the beast and when the best opportunity to do so is, the wolf is only focused on ripping you to pieces. + +Fighting a pomeranian would be a different story. +nickwhittaker: /u/exploremedora I am wondering if you have any thoughts on what /u/xantiherox said below regarding dogs and their weaknesses. + +> The only weapons a dog has are his mouth/bite and his claws. canine claws really aren't that substantial, and the way a canine's body is put together is such that they have a pretty limited range of motion with either their front or hind legs. They need 3 of their limbs functional to be mobile. They don't have the power to break a adult male human leg. +so off the bat I think a human is at an advantage just in terms of body structure. we can us our arms, legs, head, mouth, and inflict damage with all of these. our kicks and punches are more powerful. +Add intelligence and it's pretty much game over. Any object can be used as a weapon. A rock can be thrown from a distance or used as a hammer, a stick becomes a spear, etc, etc. +If you are familiar with fighting you know weak spots: eyes, neck, spine, ribs, genitals, limbs. You know these are the areas to attack and that these are the areas you need to protect on yourself. But a canine isn't really capable of inflicting serious damage to a humans back or ribs or limbs (I'm talking about attacking them such that you can't use a limb; a dog isn't going to break your arm or leg or back with it's bite, at least not an average adult male). So a human really needs to only be seriously worried about their eyes/face, neck, and groin. A dog pretty much has no defense. +If you can take a dog's back it's over. their snout is such that one could easily grab it's jaws and twist to break it's neck. Kicks to the ribs, limbs back, from a human male, are forceful enough to break a dogs bones. Knees to a dogs skull or ribs would also be very effective. +The biggest disadvantage a human has is human fear. If you are able to overcome that I don't really think a dog has any chance. If you realize that if you don't kill the dog the dog is going to kill you, you'll do what needs to be done. +Again I am talking about an average male who knows how to fight, is of average intelligence and is in good physical shape. +I have grown up with rottweiler's and german shepherds. We fought. Granted they weren't trying to kill me (I just like to play rough with my pets) and while I have certainly been bitten and blood has been drawn more than a few times, it has always been pretty obvious that if I really wanted/needed to, the dog wouldn't stand a chance. But, I am trained in multiple martial arts since I was 4, and have fought people. A dog isn't going to put you in an arm bar or rear naked choke. I think knowing how to fight gives one a better chance than being an adult male. And being able to use objects is a pretty big advantage as well. Near water? just hold the thing under. +The only way a dog is going to beat me is if I let my guard down and it gets my neck. +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8af1K4Z_4 (Boy kills adult german shepherd with bard hands) (doesn't show it, it is just the news story. the dog was a police dog. the kid strangled it. shows the kid after the fight being taken into custody. his clothes are torn, but no substantial injuries.). +I tried to find the last known case of an adult male being killed by a single dog, but I couldn't find anything. + +" +"StanleyDarsh22: backing into a spot where no cars are moving and you can see exactly what's behind you, VS backing out into the road where cars can be flying by because people don't know how to drive safely in parking lots, added to that bigger blind spots and possibility of huge trucks parked next to you. + +choose one. + + +should note that this doesn't apply to the parking lots that have the angled parking spaces. those you should only ever pull in forward. +NJFiend: Hmmm. This is compelling. So now I do understand the idea, but your blind spots are only at your side and slightly back. A car isn't going to hit you from the side while you are in a tight space. Looking over your shoulder and going slow should suffice in virtually all situations. + +My own experience is the person who backs into a spot creates more of a hazard, because they drive past the space and reverse unexpectedly into it. This confuses whoever is behind them (or driving past them) and creates a potential accident situation. + +If you are a good enough driver to back into a space, you are good enough to back out. One way just takes longer and is confusing to drivers around you." +"Quetzalcoatls: The biggest issue is that all of the things you have listed are not primarily concerns for the general public of computer users. Ease of use and familiarity are the chief concerns and these are two metrics in which even the best Linux OS's fails spectacularly. + +Linux, if time is spent configuring it, can be great. Unfortunately most people will never take the time to do this and find the UI of the OS quite annoying and counter intuitive after 2 decades of exposure to windows. + +Clearly you are someone who is knowledgeable in computers so you see no problem in adapting to Linux use. Imagine having the headache you would receive teaching every member of your extended family how to operate Linux. Now expand that onto a population that isn't going to have a handy guide to hold their hand the whole way. + +Until Linux takes significant steps to adapt it's UI to a more user friendly design it will never receive more than a niche market share of OS's. Private citizens and businesses alike will be weary to adapt it until this problem is addressed. +tuxed: &#8710; Perhaps I've dug down into the Google hole far too much. I think at this point it's just a lost battle altogether. The short term is much more important than the long-term for most people, sadly. Thus, I have changed my view to no. + +tl;dr: Linux is simply not desktop ready due to the short-term disadvantages that eventually drive them away." +"CrazybutSolid: They do have the same importance. I think the point you're trying to make is that they should have the same importance to the media? + +If this is the case, then it all goes down to the fact that explosions happen less often. The more something happens, the more banal is seen, the less it will attract attention + +Blair_84: Yes, that's my point. I understand the rarity of the occurrence, but the Boston bombings happened almost a year ago and people still talk about it. When something rare happen, you talk about it for a while, but not for so long, in my opinion." +"Helicase21: Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. + +For example, imagine a relatively long (30+ years) period of peace. All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. + +Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? +deathvevo: Although it's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic." +"MrCapitalismWildRide: Many employees live paycheck to paycheck, or close. If they get no sick pay, they won't stay home when they're sick because they need the money. So they end up infecting other people, some of whom may get so sick that they can't work at all, costing the company money, or they end up contaminating the product, which hurts revenue if the problem is caught and hurts customers and can lead to lawsuits if it isn't caught. + +I'll need to think more about vacation time but sick time seems like a no brainer +eaglessoar: ∆ + +Your username is perfect for this topic btw :) + +Edit: looks like I need to write more, first time here... It's a good point about people being forced to come into work when they feel sick, it's less about them feeling good and more about them needing the money, so if you're not giving them money when they stay home they'll come in anyways because if you don't care about the employees why should they?" +"MrCapitalismWildRide: That is literally not what socialist feminism is. Or at least that's not what Marxist feminism is. Marxist feminism asserts that women were made subservient to men, by men, for the interests of capitalism, and that the oppression is so tied to capitalism that, even if you somehow eliminated it, you'd still have oppression along other lines (race, sexuality, etc) that would potentially be worse than before. Therefore dismantling capitalism is the only way to end oppression. + +Among the left, the idea that women's oppression is solely derived from biology is an idea pretty much only believed by trans exclusionary radical feminists, a particularly small and terrible movement. Heck, in early hunter gatherer tribes, gatherers, who were mostly if not entirely women, provided upwards of 80% of the food. +Bunyardz: Δ I'm giving you a delta because while you haven't exactly changed my view, you definitely took a little chunk out of my argument, and saved me the embarrassment of using socialist feminism as an example during a real life discussion." +"Casey234: >What I'm trying to say, is that people should not be forced into believing and supporting gay marriage, gay/lesbian/transgender/pansexual and all that—they should be allowed to express their freedom of religion... + +People are already free to practice their religion, they don't have to support LGBT people and they're not being forced to either. What they can't do, is impose their religious beliefs on other people, they can't get their religious beliefs enshrined into law. Religious people are in no way being oppressed by two gay people getting married, they just aren't allowed to dictate the rules on who gets to get married based on their religion. + + +Stines182: &#8710; - This makes more sense to me. I often forget the fact that you can't [and shouldn't] let religion get in the way of unlawfully mistreating a gay person for example." +"howbigis1gb: Some of these are NOT victimless crimes. + +Drug cartels are a thing, and are responsible for plenty of violence. + +Prostitution and sex trafficking are interlinked. + +Not wearing seat belts can kill people. And additionally be a HUGE liability issue. Imagine two people involved in a crash - one of them is wearing a seatbelt and another is not. One of them dies (the one not wearing a belt). Now negligent manslaughter can be added to the list of charges of the person wearing a belt. Additionally - why is smoking in the car with a minor present different than neglecting to buckle your child? + +There is merit in the suggestions to legalise drugs and prostitution - but calling them victimless is simplistic. + +Not to mention the users themselves are at high risk of injury or death in the case of drugs. + +And what will be the support system for prostitutes? The government might even need to get involved. + +I can't argue with kiddie cartoon porn. + +Nudity is generally frowned upon socially, but I don't have a strong case for why it should be illegal. + +Sexting is complicated. It involves issues of privacy as well. What about bordeline minor/major, etc. +Giblet4u: >Drug cartels are a thing, and are responsible for plenty of violence. + +That's why I believe in the regulation of drugs. There aren't drug cartels dealing in alcohol or tobacco because they are legal and regulated by the government. I believe in opening it up to companies to make and sell drugs with proper permits. + +>Prostitution and sex trafficking are interlinked. + +Again you are totally right, but I would argue that the reason for that is its an illegal business. In Las Vegas as far as I'm aware all prostitutes are checked out, and I don't think the sex trade can exist on the same level as in other places where its totally illegal. I definitely believe the government should be involved in keeping it consensual. + +>Not wearing seat belts can kill people. And additionally be a HUGE liability issue. + +It can kill people, but as far as I'm aware it only kills the people who fail to buckle up. I don't think the government should be like ""Hey its illegal for you to do things that are dangerous to your own health"". I didn't even consider the liability thing though, so thanks for bringing that up because thats a really good point. You have perhaps changed my view on this aspect. + +Thanks for the reply :) +" +"haikuginger: While XML isn't the best *computer-readable* method for storing data, it's fantastic when you want data to be both computer-readable and easily human-editable without specialized software. + +For example, I rip all of my DVDs and Blu-Rays to my computer so that I can access them through media software. That software automatically retrieves metadata from the Internet for each movie and saves it in an xml file alongside the video file itself. Obviously, the software would run more efficiently if it ran its own SQL server to track that information, but even with external files, it works well enough. + +And, significantly, I can open up any movie.xml file I like, immediately be able to parse it, understand the information contained in it, and make modifications easily without any sort of specialized software. +petrus4: > And, significantly, I can open up any movie.xml file I like, immediately be able to parse it, understand the information contained in it, and make modifications easily without any sort of specialized software. + +What language do you use to parse the XML? I came up with something for my own media files a bit back. I name them like this:- + + star-trek+deep-space-nine+s03+e11+past-tense+1+2+.mp4 + +As you can possibly see, the + signs are field seperators. This then means, however, that I can do this:- + + #!/usr/bin/env bash + set -x + + filename=$(find ""${video}"" -type f | sed -n ""/${1}/p"") + mplayer ""${filename}"" + +Because of the way I've named the file, with 1+2 (part 1) coming first, this means that this single command will also set up a playlist of all parts, that goes straight to mplayer without me needing to write any other playlist file. The same works with audio or any other kind of file that has a specific application to open it, as well. If I name my files appropriately, I can open anything by keyword like this." +"Account9726: Look at the definition you provided, if we remove the exclusion of things which humans create: + +> existing in nature ~~and not made or caused by people~~ + +So essentially, by this definition, ""natural things"" are ""things that exist,"" which is frankly rather meaningless. If one wanted to discuss the results of human activity we would then have to make up a new word which could be redefined by the same argument. + +The whole point of the word is to exclude human activity. If you remove that aspect, it simply ceases to have meaning. +seanyowens: ∆. Yours was the first comment I read to make me understand how changing the definition would render the word useless. I see how depending on context there are multiple uses of the word natural and it would appear my friend and I were arguing over the definition rather than what we meant each time we used the word natural. That's why you've changed my view, also went to bed so sorry for the delay haha. Cheers" +"garnteller: The problem is that most countries don't work that way. California can't secede from the United States even with 100% of the vote, no more than San Francisco could secede from California. + +But that sounds very undemocratic, doesn't it? However, when running a country (as opposed to say a loose confederation) you need to know that there is stability. It's hard to build an airbase, or an oil reserve, or a research lab in an area if that area might decide to leave. Or if a massive earthquake hits the Eastern part of the country and the West wants to leave to avoid paying for the cleanup. + +Then you have things like who makes up the military. Do you need to make sure that you have only segmented regiments, so if one state leaves, you can just split off their share? + +That doesn't even get in to things like currency, trade agreements, pipelines, and borders. + +Finally, what happens to the people who grew up in one area and moved to another for work? Where do they belong? What is their citizenship? + +It's not as simple as you make it out to be. +AgentCC: You raise a solid point. For some reason, I was under the perception that Ukraine became a country yesterday - it was lost on me that Crimea has been a part of the Ukraine since independence and for them to become a part of Russia now that it's convenient for them does smack of illegality and invites a withering away of Ukrainian sovereignty at a crucial time in its development as a more independent and rather fragile state. + +Kudos to you, I now see the Crimean referendum as illegal and award you with your 38th delta [&#8710;] + +However, I still believe that it will be a restive province and there will be further bloodshed down the road. " +"MageZero: This has actually been tried in court in 2006. + +[In his ruling, Worcester Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A. Locke cited Webster's Third New International Dictionary definition of a sandwich and explained that the difference comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla, “A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans.”](http://www.stuartkaplow.com/library3.cfm?article_id=131) +Ayavaron: Burritos, tacos and quesadills are legally not sandwiches. I've been disproven with legal precedent. + +∆ + +EDIT: I need to make this comment longer and I'm not really sure how. I suppose it's worth stating that the interaction between language and law is a powerful confirmation of how meanings of words have been disseminated and can be understood. Does that make this long enough for me to give a delta? " +"intangiblemango: I am going to start with the caveat that I am not trying to change your overall opinion. I am ONLY trying change your opinion on this particular segment of your reasoning: ""...this was wrong to do, *because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented*."" I totally agree that Bernie Sanders has one of the better records on civil rights among the candidates who are running. However, that makes him a better target, not a worse one. It would be completely pointless to show up at a Donald Trump rally and say something about Black Lives Matter (or any racial issue). Donald Trump is a clear and overt racist. There is nothing that can be done to make Donald Trump a good candidate on race. Bernie Sanders is a relatively good candidate on race, but many people who have race as the primary political issue that they care about believe that he could be better. By targeting Sanders, who is already a relatively good candidate on race, people can put pressure on him to make race a primary element of his campaign and to refine his opinions on policies regarding racism and social justice. + +I don't know what the motivations of these women necessarily were (their message was VERY muddied by a lot of factors) and I don't think their actions were appropriate or helpful at this time. But I think the idea that Bernie Sanders should be free of criticism on racial issues specifically because he has a decent history on them is silly. If people who are not satisfied with his record at this time criticize him and he steps up to the plate, they might have a candidate they actually want to vote for. +JapanNoodleLife: That's a good point on that part. I think that overall it's a bad idea, but you're right that it'd be pointless to do this at anyone running on the right. ∆" +"facing_the_fallout: I think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not ""good."" Certainly it is not ""independent,"" but who is to say it is not ""good?"" We don't know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable--often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it. After all, autism is a communication disorder. We can't really ""share the experiences"" of someone with severe autism. And, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question. We've no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we can't ask in a way they understand and they can't tell us. + +Now, I'm not talking about people with devastating, painful medical conditions who CAN tell us how they feel. I believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill and greatly suffering. But I don't think we can reasonably extend that to someone who by definition cannot tell us if they are suffering or not. + +Edit: You also mention the negative impact a child with a severe disability has on the family. While this is very sad, if it wouldn't be grounds for euthanizing any other child, why are disabled children different? What I mean is, if my family were suffering greatly because we could not afford to feed a child, say, or because we were overburdened by regular childcare needs, would we be able to euthanize the child? If not, why not, if effect on others matters? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument, I'm asking why a negative impact from a disabled child is different from a negative impact of a non-disabled child--which, depending on circumstance, could be equal or lesser. + +Edit2: If you've come to tell me I don't know anything about taking care of disabled people, save it. I worked in a care facility and my brothers are autistic. I guess it isn't clear: my alternative plan to OP's euthanasia is not ""parents should suck it up,"" it's ""we should have a social safety net for this type of situation, including in and out of home care for these families, because that's what social safety nets are for."" There is no need to tell me that these families suffer because it is impossible to provide round the clock care--that is obvious to me. +elvish_visionary: > I think the central issue with this type of view is the idea that the life a severely disabled person has is not ""good."" Certainly it is not ""independent,"" but who is to say it is not ""good?"" We don't know whether severely autistic people are generally happy or miserable--often they do not express happiness the way neurotypical people do but may report experiencing it. After all, autism is a communication disorder. We can't really ""share the experiences"" of someone with severe autism. And, of course, there are many other disabilities where we encounter the same question. We've no way to know whether they are enjoying themselves and their lives, because we can't ask in a way they understand and they can't tell us. + +Indeed, we cannot tell for sure if they are happy or not, but is the chance that they might be happy worth keeping them alive, when we do know for sure that their mere existence is wreaking havoc on the lives of multiple other people? + +> I'm asking why a negative impact from a disabled child is different from a negative impact of a non-disabled child--which, depending on circumstance, could be equal or lesser. + +Because the non-disabled child, even if it comes from a poor family, still has a great chance to contribute to society, and live a normal happy life if they can better their economic situation." +"Amablue: > At some point, the sum of all your actions becomes nil. No one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot. + +Why does this mean your life is pointless? It had a point *to you*. That's all the meaning you can hope for. No matter what else happens, even in the heat death of the universe when every particle has decayed and there's nothing left, nothing can change that you existed for a period of time. Your existence and your actions still happened even if there's no record of them. Do your actions need permanence to have meaning? +Senecatwo: I am simply a biological machine looking to make more biological machines. The meaning I find in my actions is there thanks to biological imperatives to survive and reproduce. Once I'm dead, the meaning leaves with me."