claim string | positive string | negative string | post_id string | post_title string | post_text string | post_timestamp int64 | post_author string | positive_comment_id string | negative_comment_id string | positive_comment_score int64 | negative_comment_score int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: I would be happier under Clinton then I am under Trump.
I am glad that I live in a democracy, and obviously not everyone this said democracy will have matching visions for the U.S. However that all being said, my life will get noticeably worse under Trump. especially compared to how it could have been under Clinton.
People on reddit along with the conservative side of my family keep saying I will be happier under Trump then Clinton, but I feel like all of my ideas are opposed by Trump. Maybe my ideas and ideals are wrong, so feel free to nitpick those, but my main issue is that I would be happier under Clinton then Trump. CMV
A bit of background, I am a 17 year old Highschool senior living in the midwest. I am currently waiting on my acceptance (or rejection) letters for college, but more then likely I will be living in either New York (NYU or Pratt) or Los Angeles (USC or Cal Arts) within 8 months. I am planning on attending school for a degree in film and animation, which falls under the arts, programs Trump wants to defund. While the schools I am applying too are private, with less money being put into the arts I could loose opportunities for internships, or even jobs out in Hollywood as many executives debate on abandoning the US.
However beyond this in the long term I could loose my healthcare. I have a 50% chance of inheriting a rare form of skin cancer, because of this starting when I am 21 I will have to get at least one colonoscopy a year to make sure I am cancer free. These colonoscopies cost upward of 15 grand, and are not something I can pay for by myself. While I am covered currently, and would be through college, I will likely need some form of government provided insurance post college because I am considered too high risk (cancer, depression, and aspergers) for many private insurance companies to cover me.
I am also bisexual and with Trump's picks to the supreme court I fear I could loose my right to marry a man if I so choose too. My current partner may also not have access to cheap birth control.
Along with all of this hate crimes have spiked recently and while I know that Trump doesn't directly support them, all evidence is showing that it will be more dangerous for minorities under his administration. As a Jewish convert who is always wearing a Kippah I am for the first time feeling scared wearing it. While this fear might be irrational, it wasn't there when Obama was in charge because I had a false sense of security, however now that is gone and I am constantly plagued by anxiety.
Moving beyond my issues though, I feel like all of my ideals for America will be tarnished under Trump's administration. Again I understand that we can't all have what we want, but I feel like I would have been far happier under Clinton.
My number one issue is the boarder. However unlike Trump I am a heavy supporter of completely open boarders. My whole family is, and I have been my whole life. I believe that the future we as a species have to achieve is a one world government. I fly a UN flag from my window opposed to an American flag. The job of someone in China is just as if not more important because of how poor many of them are, as a job in the US. We should be spending money on the whole world, there is nothing that makes any of us different from those around the world so why make walls? While these opinions are not popular (again compromise) this just reaffirms my believe that I would be far happier under Clinton.
My next biggest issues I'll try to be snappy with.
Number two is global warming, it is happening and we need to address it.
Guns are terrible and ideally they should be completely banned, but that isn't going to happen so we need to highly regulate them. I am constantly terrified because of them so again more regulations would make me feel safer.
Better education! More money to public schools, stop spending it on the military.
Going off that, I am completely opposed to the military and I believe we need to let the UN function as our military kind of like how we function like Japan's.
Vetting in as many refugees as possible.
ACA or some form of affordable healthcare.
Cheaper college.
Closing the pay gap, equal rights, womans rights, etc etc etc. Basically imho we have oppressed women for thousands of years so it's about time they are on top. I am honestly fine with them having not just equal, but more rights then me.
Basically all 'SJW' issues. I strongly support BLM, safe spaces, trigger warnings, gay marriage, Trans* rights, etc.
Israel and the two state solution. (sounds like a book lol)
More public transport and urbanism.
And more funding to the arts and media programs.
So yeah basically I feel like every single one of my ideas is opposed by Trump. Again compromise, but I am constantly suffering panic attacks and fear about this administration. And yet people keep saying my life will be BETTER under Trump then Clinton, so how? Why should I like Trump more then Clinton?
| >all of my ideas are opposed by Trump.
So? That is how democracy works. The Government and opposition change fairly regulary and while it is likley your exact views won't be represented there will be times it is closer and further away. That is a key part of democracy.
>I am currently waiting on my acceptance (or rejection) letters for college
Good luck.
>I am planning on attending school for a degree in film and animation, which falls under the arts, programs Trump wants to defund.
I hate to sound too snobish but I feel like this is a good idea, both in my nation (UK) and yours there has been a massive increase in those with degrees and as such has lowered the worth of a B or M degree somewhat. Also I don't know exactly for the US but here in the UK we fail to produce enough STEM graduates and making the STEM relatively cheeper to study is a way to encourage this. You also need a doctor of medicine and an engineer more than you need an artist.
>While the schools I am applying too are private, with less money being put into the arts I could loose opportunities for internships
I would see this as a good thing as you getting an internship will mean more and show your dedication making you more preferable for a position to a job.
>Hollywood as many executives debate on abandoning the US
I highly doubt this would happen as Hollywood is already established, and if it does happen it gives you the chance to travel the world. May I suggest Valleywood in the most beautiful nation to grace the Earth (Cymru/Wales).
>I could loose my healthcare. I have a 50% chance of inheriting a rare form of skin cancer, because of this starting when I am 21 I will have to get at least one colonoscopy a year to make sure I am cancer free.
That is most troubling to read, I sincerely hope this doesn't befall you but I doubt Clinton would be much better. Her health care plan was equally awful, though in Valleywood the NHS/GIG will provide it. This appears to be more of an ingrained problem of the US not of Trump.
>I am also bisexual and with Trump's picks to the supreme court I fear I could loose my right to marry a man if I so choose
Trumps decisons will not effect this. Trump at worst would try to send it back to a states rights issue, which given how the US is not a state but a Union I think is how it should have been handled but the decision is made. His most recent comments are that he won't try to have it repealled.
>My current partner may also not have access to cheap birth control.
And, you don't want a child and want to fuck, you have to pay the costs. Why should the good tax payer fund this?
>completely open boarders.
Free movement isn't a good thing for either parites. Mexico loses much of its working male populas who go to America for higher wages. Americans lose jobs as their wage is undercut. The brain drain for Mexico and wage drain for America leaves no winners.
>I fly a UN flag from my window opposed to an American flag.
This is utopian, as in it is a nice idea but will never work. You maybe aware that in WW1 we British offered the Arabs a single Arab nation should they help us agaisnt the Ottomans, short story we didn't. There was for a time much politcal will for this union of Arabs. In the 1970s Egypt and Syria entered talks to become a union of equal states. They couldn't agree on terms due to the differences. This is two Arab states majority Sunni Muslim but with large historic religious and ethnic minorities (yazidis and Kurds for Syria and Copts in Egypt). The nations are fairly similar and there was political will for it, and they still failed. How do you expect the US a fairly free nation to be able to unionise with a toltaritarian state? Also there is a rise in nationalism (Scottish, Aragonese, Barvarian, Breton, Pan-Celtic) across Europe. How do you expect these people to unionise in a greater union? Not to mention Africa.
>The job of someone in China is just as if not more important because of how poor many of them are,
This is a direct problem for Chine (PROC), while the Communist party rules the plebians won't see any rise while to politcal eliet will. Using cheap chinese labour exploits their shit situation and keeps them as slaves in that awful place.
>there is nothing that makes any of us different from those around the world so why make walls?
Oh but there is. America is a post British nation, your ideas and identity are higher than that of some others. The liberty of the people is put before the state for the most part. There are many states that wouldn't treat people as freely as this. You mention LGBT rights, many nations in the world would see you cruxified if you were open about this there. At worst you may not be able to get married, which would be bad but not comparable.
>Guns are terrible and ideally they should be completely banned,
Guns are a useful tool for home defence and defence of the state both from itself and opposition. There is a reason the good King Alfred the Great in the Doom Book said that all freemen of Wessux should be armed (where your second amendment comes from).
>I am completely opposed to the military and I believe we need to let the UN function as our military
Firstly Japan is a military protectorate of the USA. That is why the US is their army. Secondly I'd describe the time we live in as Pax America, just as 1814-1914 was Pax Britanica. The peace America provides. It is for this reason US funding of the military needs to be high as it is the US military that provides peace. A key part of this is the two power doctrine. The US army needs to be able to single handedly fight off the next two stongest powers, just as the Royal Navy used to. During Pax Britianica slavery was abolished and mulitple mass wars were averted. Had Britian stood down after the Peace of Vienna it is likely Slavery will be rampent and the Balkans will be below sea level from all the explosions. America can't stand down for the good of the planent. As I have prior mentioned a world union is utopian and unworkable.
>Vetting in as many refugees as possible.
Most Syrians want to remain in Syria. What should be done is funding camps in Turkey and the Lebanon to house the Syrians till they can return home. Mass migration will just make Syria an unsaveable shithole.
>Closing the pay gap
There is no pay gap. To do this in the US is illegal. There is an average earnings gap and this is because of choice. You can't have it all in life and if you don't work as much for whatever reason you will have a lower wage.
>equal rights
To my knowledge they are already in place.
>Basically imho we have oppressed women for thousands of years so it's about time they are on top.
I haven't. I only have 18 years to boast of. My farther doesn't even break a century, nor does my mother or anyone else in the family. Even from a historic point we in the West haven't. In 1287 women could vote in England (the first year men in England could vote). Wyoming gave women the universail (not wealth waited) vote in 1870. Not to mention the mention of women throughout the Chronicles of nearly all European Kingdoms. Heck even in the Greek City States of the Ancient era women had emense power over the home, usually a house was shared by multiple familes of the same family (4 brothers) should 3 wives back a motion (who should educate the children, what we should do about x) they would win. While women couldn't cast a stone in the Forum they had a different power.
>I am honestly fine with them having not just equal, but more rights then me.
What an ugly and utterly repugnant not to mention illiberal idea that is. We are all to be equals no one is anyones superior on the basis of what genitals they have nor what colour their skin is nor the liniage no matter how noble or common it is. The worth of each person is a relative ammount of 1, not one higher nor lower.
>BLM
A group founded on noble ideas led astray by their racism. I never thought I'd see the day a fairly popular group would call for blacks and whites to be segregated. Not since the I have a dream speech or Mandela wining in Sud Afrika. BLM are more akin to the KKK or Hendrik than they are a liberal when it comes to race. Seperate but equal is no form of equality.
>safe spaces
Ones ideas should always be open to critique lest we fall into circular lodgic protected from the real world where people disagree. Guess what you are wrong, as am I on issues. We only learn what is right through discussion. In the 2015 General Election I was far more intrested in talking to the torries supporters than the Liberal or Labour supporters just as in the Brexit vote I was more intrested in talking to those who supported leave (till I changed my stance) at which point I wanted to talk to the remain kids. There is no grater joy in politcs than debate with the opposition.
>trigger warnings
Most tigger warnings are bullshit and if you can't function without them you should be sanctioned for your own saftey.
>Israel and the two state solution.
You think Clinton will deliver this?
| >Along with all of this hate crimes have spiked recently and while I know that Trump doesn't directly support them, all evidence is showing that it will be more dangerous for minorities under his administration.
I'm not sure how much I agree with this.
It's true *allegations* of hate crimes have spiked but IMO the percentage of these that have turned out to be hoaxes is high enough for me to question whether hate crimes have really spiked at all.
>My number one issue is the boarder. However unlike Trump I am a heavy supporter of completely open boarders. My whole family is, and I have been my whole life. I believe that the future we as a species have to achieve is a one world government. I fly a UN flag from my window opposed to an American flag. The job of someone in China is just as if not more important because of how poor many of them are, as a job in the US. We should be spending money on the whole world, there is nothing that makes any of us different from those around the world so why make walls? While these opinions are not popular (again compromise) this just reaffirms my believe that I would be far happier under Clinton.
It might not be a popular fact to remember on /r/CMV but it's always worth remembering that Clinton **ALREADY** built a wall across the Mexican border.
>So yeah basically I feel like every single one of my ideas is opposed by Trump. Again compromise, but I am constantly suffering panic attacks and fear about this administration. And yet people keep saying my life will be BETTER under Trump then Clinton, so how? Why should I like Trump more then Clinton?
It seems likely that you would like the alternative today but it's also worth remembering that you're very young and inexperienced. There's a very fair likelihood you'll have very different ideas by the time you finish high school and enter into the workplace. | 5pqelh | CMV: I would be happier under Clinton then I am under Trump. | I am glad that I live in a democracy, and obviously not everyone this said democracy will have matching visions for the U.S. However that all being said, my life will get noticeably worse under Trump. especially compared to how it could have been under Clinton.
People on reddit along with the conservative side of my family keep saying I will be happier under Trump then Clinton, but I feel like all of my ideas are opposed by Trump. Maybe my ideas and ideals are wrong, so feel free to nitpick those, but my main issue is that I would be happier under Clinton then Trump. CMV
A bit of background, I am a 17 year old Highschool senior living in the midwest. I am currently waiting on my acceptance (or rejection) letters for college, but more then likely I will be living in either New York (NYU or Pratt) or Los Angeles (USC or Cal Arts) within 8 months. I am planning on attending school for a degree in film and animation, which falls under the arts, programs Trump wants to defund. While the schools I am applying too are private, with less money being put into the arts I could loose opportunities for internships, or even jobs out in Hollywood as many executives debate on abandoning the US.
However beyond this in the long term I could loose my healthcare. I have a 50% chance of inheriting a rare form of skin cancer, because of this starting when I am 21 I will have to get at least one colonoscopy a year to make sure I am cancer free. These colonoscopies cost upward of 15 grand, and are not something I can pay for by myself. While I am covered currently, and would be through college, I will likely need some form of government provided insurance post college because I am considered too high risk (cancer, depression, and aspergers) for many private insurance companies to cover me.
I am also bisexual and with Trump's picks to the supreme court I fear I could loose my right to marry a man if I so choose too. My current partner may also not have access to cheap birth control.
Along with all of this hate crimes have spiked recently and while I know that Trump doesn't directly support them, all evidence is showing that it will be more dangerous for minorities under his administration. As a Jewish convert who is always wearing a Kippah I am for the first time feeling scared wearing it. While this fear might be irrational, it wasn't there when Obama was in charge because I had a false sense of security, however now that is gone and I am constantly plagued by anxiety.
Moving beyond my issues though, I feel like all of my ideals for America will be tarnished under Trump's administration. Again I understand that we can't all have what we want, but I feel like I would have been far happier under Clinton.
My number one issue is the boarder. However unlike Trump I am a heavy supporter of completely open boarders. My whole family is, and I have been my whole life. I believe that the future we as a species have to achieve is a one world government. I fly a UN flag from my window opposed to an American flag. The job of someone in China is just as if not more important because of how poor many of them are, as a job in the US. We should be spending money on the whole world, there is nothing that makes any of us different from those around the world so why make walls? While these opinions are not popular (again compromise) this just reaffirms my believe that I would be far happier under Clinton.
My next biggest issues I'll try to be snappy with.
Number two is global warming, it is happening and we need to address it.
Guns are terrible and ideally they should be completely banned, but that isn't going to happen so we need to highly regulate them. I am constantly terrified because of them so again more regulations would make me feel safer.
Better education! More money to public schools, stop spending it on the military.
Going off that, I am completely opposed to the military and I believe we need to let the UN function as our military kind of like how we function like Japan's.
Vetting in as many refugees as possible.
ACA or some form of affordable healthcare.
Cheaper college.
Closing the pay gap, equal rights, womans rights, etc etc etc. Basically imho we have oppressed women for thousands of years so it's about time they are on top. I am honestly fine with them having not just equal, but more rights then me.
Basically all 'SJW' issues. I strongly support BLM, safe spaces, trigger warnings, gay marriage, Trans* rights, etc.
Israel and the two state solution. (sounds like a book lol)
More public transport and urbanism.
And more funding to the arts and media programs.
So yeah basically I feel like every single one of my ideas is opposed by Trump. Again compromise, but I am constantly suffering panic attacks and fear about this administration. And yet people keep saying my life will be BETTER under Trump then Clinton, so how? Why should I like Trump more then Clinton?
| 1,485,194,345 | Doctorboffin | dctfvj7 | dct0417 | 10 | 7 |
CMV: I think the ending of the Watchmen movie was better than the ending of the comic.
*Spoiler alert*
If you haven't watched the movie and read the comic, this is quite a major spoiler, and since they are both good, go enjoy both of them and come back to prove me wrong.
In the comic, as you know, a giant squid comes out of nowhere and destroys New York. That's framed as some kind of alien invasion and it supposedly makes the world decide to unite against the threat. That's... kind of silly (they are both silly, but that's beside the point). When it comes for the story, it basically comes out of nowhere, out of theme, out of message out of character, everything.
On the other hand, the whole character arc of Dr. Manhattan is that he is drifting away from society. It also makes sense that he's collaborating with Veidt on energy tech - they both want to solve the world's problems and both have capabilities to assist in that field.
When Manhattan goes to Mars, to the world, that's an indication that he's completely given up on society so when it's implied he's the one who did the damage back on Earth, it would make sense. He has become, over time, a kind of a third party, not really tied by his allegiance to the US or even the human race.
Moreover, humanity has gotten to know Manhattan, they know that he's a real thing AND that he can be a real threat if he wants to be. While it's also a silly premise for world peace, it would at least make more sense for the world to unite against basically a one-man nuclear arsenal from Mars. | >When it comes for the story, it basically comes out of nowhere, out of theme, out of message out of character, everything.
That's kind of the point though. Veidt's intentions are to unite the world. The idea of the squid is that the world needs to band together to be able to fight any unforeseen enemy. The squid is the epitomy of this. No one saw it coming, not even the reader. Manhattan doesn't fit this criteria. Even if Dr. Manhattan had gone of the rails, he was a extension of the US military for a long time. Russia would likely blame the US for not properly controlling Dr. Manhattan/foreseeing his eventual plan. This would not cause the peace Veidt wanted and would probably cause more tension between Russia and the US.
Think of a parallel to terrorism. Say a rogue US military agent decided to release chemical bombs in Russia and the US. Do you think Russia would not place some blame on the US for not foreseeing and preventing this from occurring? Of course they would. The agents past affiliations with the US would be used as a political weapon against them. The same issue would happen with Manhattan.
>When Manhattan goes to Mars, to the world, that's an indication that he's completely given up on society so when it's implied he's the one who did the damage back on Earth, it would make sense. He has become, over time, a kind of a third party, not really tied by his allegiance to the US or even the human race.
I don't get this either. If Manhattan was indifferent towards humanity, he would have just left and never came back. People who are indifferent towards things don't go out of their way to destroy them. The only reason he would want to destroy mankind is if he is either angry with them or wants to rule them. In either of these situations, Russia would likely blame the US for not properly handling Manhattan.
>Moreover, humanity has gotten to know Manhattan, they know that he's a real thing AND that he can be a real threat if he wants to be.
Yes, that's true. They also know that Nixon used Manhattan to win a war. There would be tons of blame placed on the US for abusing Manhattan's powers and making him give up on mankind. | I also liked Dr. Manhattan as the uniting factor for mankind via the movie as opposed to the comic's "alien squid thing".
Except for the fact that, as quoted, "God exists, and he's American". I feel that, realistically, in a Cold War situation, the Russians would have blamed America for unleashing Dr. Manhattan on the world, finding a way to turn all except for the U.S.'s strongest allies against them, and possibly starting WWIII despite Ozymandias's attempts to shift the globe away from conflict. The American defense, "well, he hurt us too," would not have been enough to stem the world's anger at them.
So while "alien squid" seemed too far "out there" for my preference, it's at least a wholly external threat - i.e. the Americans can't be blamed - whereas Dr. Manhattan can still be politicized by the biases already inherent in the global system. | 5prh4y | CMV: I think the ending of the Watchmen movie was better than the ending of the comic. | *Spoiler alert*
If you haven't watched the movie and read the comic, this is quite a major spoiler, and since they are both good, go enjoy both of them and come back to prove me wrong.
In the comic, as you know, a giant squid comes out of nowhere and destroys New York. That's framed as some kind of alien invasion and it supposedly makes the world decide to unite against the threat. That's... kind of silly (they are both silly, but that's beside the point). When it comes for the story, it basically comes out of nowhere, out of theme, out of message out of character, everything.
On the other hand, the whole character arc of Dr. Manhattan is that he is drifting away from society. It also makes sense that he's collaborating with Veidt on energy tech - they both want to solve the world's problems and both have capabilities to assist in that field.
When Manhattan goes to Mars, to the world, that's an indication that he's completely given up on society so when it's implied he's the one who did the damage back on Earth, it would make sense. He has become, over time, a kind of a third party, not really tied by his allegiance to the US or even the human race.
Moreover, humanity has gotten to know Manhattan, they know that he's a real thing AND that he can be a real threat if he wants to be. While it's also a silly premise for world peace, it would at least make more sense for the world to unite against basically a one-man nuclear arsenal from Mars. | 1,485,203,846 | kostiak | dct9k5n | dct9jbz | 37 | 2 |
CMV: Democrats Have Become the Party of International Free Trade
With the rejection of the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, the general anti-Atlanticism, promotion of the Brexit, the weakening of the European Union, promotion of protectionist tariffs, and taxes on businesses moving out of the country, the Republicans and Democrats have seemed to complete a role shift in the way they view international trade. Democrats now seem to be the ones in favor of international free trade, and have rejected Trump's and Sander's views on it.
This is something I would honestly never believe if you told me 4 years ago, but here we are. I still believe Republicans are generally pro-trade *within* the United States, but in terms of international trade I firmly believe that right now Democrats are in the lead. | The last time there was a vote on the TPP, 29 Dems voted against it and 13 for. By contrast 6 Republicans voted against and 47 for.
The GOP platform reads in part:
> International trade is crucial for all sectors of America’s economy. Massive trade deficits are not. We envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a “Reagan Economic Zone,” in which free trade will truly be fair trade for all concerned.
By contrast the Democratic National platform reads:
> Over the past three decades, America has signed too many trade deals that have not lived up to the hype. Trade deals often boosted the profits of large corporations, while at the same time failing to protect workers’ rights, labor standards, the environment, and public health. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies that support jobs in America. That is why Democrats believe we should review agreements negotiated years ago to update them to reflect these principles. Any future trade agreements must make sure our trading partners cannot undercut American workers by taking shortcuts on labor policy or the environment. They must not undermine democratic decision-making through special privileges and private courts for corporations, and trade negotiations must be transparent and inclusive.
Sure, Trump is against free trade, but as soon as he's gone that is all over for the GOP. | I don't know if I would agree in regards to the TPP - it was a pretty [divisive policy in the Democratic party](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/26/how-the-tpp-became-the-most-divisive-policy-in-the-democratic-party/?utm_term=.f8a4e1bdff53) just like in the GOP. | 5ps0vo | CMV: Democrats Have Become the Party of International Free Trade | With the rejection of the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, the general anti-Atlanticism, promotion of the Brexit, the weakening of the European Union, promotion of protectionist tariffs, and taxes on businesses moving out of the country, the Republicans and Democrats have seemed to complete a role shift in the way they view international trade. Democrats now seem to be the ones in favor of international free trade, and have rejected Trump's and Sander's views on it.
This is something I would honestly never believe if you told me 4 years ago, but here we are. I still believe Republicans are generally pro-trade *within* the United States, but in terms of international trade I firmly believe that right now Democrats are in the lead. | 1,485,208,995 | ComradePruski | dctdasw | dctczbh | 8 | 2 |
CMV: I don't believe violence should be used against those that advocate for ethnic cleansing such as Richard Spemcer
First off, of course I don't respect that view. I think it's ridiculous and offensive to minorities. He has called for explicit genocide against blacks which is totally fucked. However, I feel that violence would only help affirm these views.
It is also every Americans right to peacefully express political views without fear of intervention. I believe this should apply to the most radical views as well, or else the government would have to draw a line.
Although I have this view that violence shouldn't be used against people like this, I really don't know if his type of speech falls under free speech. I also realize freedom of speech only applies to GOVERNMENT intervention, but I feel like getting punched for saying something that might upset people would fall under another stature | "Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler
"If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests" - Franz Frison, Holocaust survivor
These are two quotes are obviously not proof in-and-of themselves, but they are good encapsulations of what any deep-dive into the history of the rise and political tactics of fascism will show you: Fascism is not susceptible to the normal tactics of debate and the marketplace of ideas.
Fascism exploits a blind-spot in liberal democracy in the same way that cancer exploits a blind-spot in the human immune system. It does not engage in the contest of ideas in the way other ideas do, it violates all the normal assumptions and short-circuits any appeal to reason made against it.
Fascism creates an entirely alternate reality with alternate facts that *feel* like they're correct (regardless of what empirical reality says) in which the in-group are the wisest, purest, most moral people in the world. It then lets them in on the secret that their pure in-group have been victim of a conspiracy of decadent, amoral out-groups who hate them for being great and have secretly conspired to corrupt them and make like everyone else.
Because its alternative set of facts feel more correct (i.e. pander to in-group prejudices better) than empirical reality, and they are reminded again and again that there is a vast conspiracy against them to fool them into complacency which has already fooled and recruited the vast majority of the population, those who believe become impervious to reality.
Any attempt to correct their misconceptions (e.g. crime is the lowest it's been in decades, there is no evidence of a conspiracy for "White Genocide", there is no evidence of millions of undocumented immigrants voting, there are no Sharia courts in America, there is no evidence of a Jewish conspiracy running the world, and so on) simply proves to them how deep the conspiracy goes and how many people are brainwashed.
These beliefs are not only irrefutable, they are contagious (they hook so well into the prejudices of the majority that they're almost irresistible) and they are urgent (YOUR COUNTRY IS BEING TAKEN OVER! THE GLOBALISTS/JEWS CONTROL THE STATE AND THEY'RE FLOODING AMERICA WITH 3RD-WORLDERS WHO WILL VOTE IN LOCKSTEP TO KEEP THEM IN POWER FOREVER! IT'S ONLY A FEW YEARS UNTIL WHITE PEOPLE ARE A MINORITY! NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS BEING IRREVERSIBLY ERODED! WHITE BLOOD IS BEING DILUTED OUT OF EXISTENCE! THERE'S ONLY A FEW YEARS LEFT TO ACT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND EVERYTHING YOU LOVE IS GONE FOREVER!!!) and because they're so at odds with the pre-existing stated values of polite society and the state, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that you must take this into your own hands.
The Blacks, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the feminists, the gays, the trans, the liberals, the (((globalists))), they're all actively ruining your life and destroying everything you love, you've gotta fight back! Make them afraid! Get together with a few like-minded buddies and intimidate them a bit, let them know it's YOUR country. People like YOU built it, and they should be on their knees in gratitude that YOU'VE let them be in it. Make sure they know what happens if they wear out their welcome. If they're not sufficiently grateful, maybe teach them some manners. It's you or them, right? And they started it when they tried to ruin everything that was great about this country.
And don't worry, you're just saying and doing what all decent people secretly believe in anyway, right? They're just to afraid to speak sense because of PC culture. After all, we voted for this, we all heard what the president was saying, and we voted him in! And I know the police around here, they're not gonna stop us so long as we don't cause them any trouble...
And so on. And when these attacks are only opposed with words rather than force, they get the message that no one is going to stop them, that the minority groups are defenceless and that the silent majority is glad they're being cut down to size. People who were apprehensive about joining in on the fun feel emboldened when they know that no one will punch back, and the movement grows, becomes more violent, and ever harder to suppress.
This has been the story of fascism every single time is has succeeded. It takes creates an indestructible alternate reality, uses that narrative to take power in the streets and the legislature, and violently crush all opposition to it. It has only every been successfully resisted when people were willing to violently oppose them, put fear into the hearts of the fascists to prevent them from effectively organising, and thereby prevent them swelling their ranks and gaining strength and legitimacy.
I understand why you don't want to accept that there can be views so abhorrent that they must be suppressed with violence, but consider how absolute you're being. Your point here implicitly is "Literally every political view should be allowed to be expressed without concern for physical violence, no matter the broader social context" (please correct me if I have characterised you.) All I'm arguing is that there are a few exceptions.
In times when there is no plausible threat of fascist ascendancy and very few hate crimes, I'd totally agree that the appropriate response to fascist is mere mockery, disgust, contempt and social exclusion.
However, when fascist movements are strong and rapidly growing, committing regular violence and intimidation, and have a Head of State who is sympathetic to them? It is not only appropriate but morally necessary to respond violently in order to protect those who are currently vulnerable and to prevent the nightmare scenarios that historically have reliably followed from such conditions when those expounding fascist ideas were not crushed with overwhelming violence. | Fascism, particularly Nazism, supports the assault and death of minority groups.
Therefore by punching him in the face, you have shown Spencer what the actual impact is of being a minority in a fascist society.
Much like when someone says that animals should not be kept or used for industry then having their wool sweater taken away, their Jell-O thrown in the trash, and their beer poured down the drain.
If example is the best way to educate, then give the person an example of the what life under their new regime is.
This is why you tend not to see violence used against those with non-violent extremist views.
The WBC isn't under threat of being shot when they protest, they are under threat of being protested themselves. | 5ps2d8 | CMV: I don't believe violence should be used against those that advocate for ethnic cleansing such as Richard Spemcer | First off, of course I don't respect that view. I think it's ridiculous and offensive to minorities. He has called for explicit genocide against blacks which is totally fucked. However, I feel that violence would only help affirm these views.
It is also every Americans right to peacefully express political views without fear of intervention. I believe this should apply to the most radical views as well, or else the government would have to draw a line.
Although I have this view that violence shouldn't be used against people like this, I really don't know if his type of speech falls under free speech. I also realize freedom of speech only applies to GOVERNMENT intervention, but I feel like getting punched for saying something that might upset people would fall under another stature | 1,485,209,386 | iTzJdogxD | dctims1 | dctdko8 | 48 | 2 |
CMV: Everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so out of malice or stupidity
Let me begin by saying that I sincerely want my view changed. I despise the divisive nature of modern American politics, and I consider myself a part of the problem as long as I hold this view. I also have family and friends that voted for Donald Trump, and I would rather not continue to think of those people as either stupid or malicious.
That said, I cannot seem to shake this opinion. Donald Trump's campaign was largely based on a) demonstrable falsehoods and b) promises to cause harm to others. These are facts. Therefore, I believe that anyone who voted for Trump must have either done so out of stupidity (or at the very least ignorance), or the desire to cause harm.
Examples of malicious voters:
* Some individuals support Trump's objectives of deporting illegal aliens without mercy or subjectivity. Others support his objective of discrimination against Muslims. Anyone who supports either of these views is exhibiting a malicious nature to his or her fellow human beings.
* Some individuals voted for Trump to "shake things up" or "watch the world burn". These are also malicious reasons to elect a president, as the outcome of "shaking things up" inevitably implies causing harm to a great many people.
* Anyone who did not support these views but voted for Trump anyway exhibited malice through complacency and apathy.
Examples of stupid voters:
* Some people believed the demonstrable falsehoods espoused by the Trump campaign. These people are either willfully ignorant, or just too stupid to notice that they were being lied to. One example of a demonstrable lie by the Trump campaign was that Trump would "drain the swamp" by doing away with cronyism and eliminating corrupt politicians from government. He did the exact opposite by nominating career politicians like Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. There are also countless examples of Donald Trump claiming never to have said or done things that audio and video evidence prove he has done and said.
* Some people believed Donald Trump would stand up for the American people, namely the working class, instead of continuing to support corporatism like many of his predecessors. The cabinet nominations of Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, for example, disprove this claim. While it may not have been possible to know that Trump would nominate such individuals to positions of power prior to the election, his close ties to individuals in the business world made this (ultimately false) promise unlikely from the beginning. Furthermore, Trump's beliefs contradict a majority of Americans on a number of issues, including the NSA, recreational marijuana, and abortion.
EDIT: I wanted to get the discussion going, but I do have more to add.
* Another example of stupidity among Trump supporters: Trump consistently utilizes low-brow [propaganda techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) (literally, just about every single one listed on Wikipedia) and informal diction specifically to appeal to voters that are below average intelligence and will be unlikely to pick up on these techniques.
* Many Trump supporters agree with Trump's objectively incorrect views on issues like global climate change. This is a result of either stupidity or willful ignorance.
So please, help me to change this admittedly harmful and negative view.
**EDIT 2:** I've awarded deltas, and seem to be getting undue negativity uncharacteristic of this sub, so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks for your comments. |
What about the people who simply wanted to pay less in taxes? There were certainly a lot of people who voted with Trump because they run businesses or have a lot of money, and they were able to swallow the stupidity and hatred Trump was spouting because they knew that they would end up paying less in taxes. Simple as that – I would call this reasoning short-sighted, but not stupid, and I think it’s also more apathetic then it is truly hateful.
| I didn't not for Trump, but I could have rationally done so because what we are seeing of his tax plan would have cut my taxes by more than a third. So there are self interested wealthy people. | 5psbyx | CMV: Everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so out of malice or stupidity | Let me begin by saying that I sincerely want my view changed. I despise the divisive nature of modern American politics, and I consider myself a part of the problem as long as I hold this view. I also have family and friends that voted for Donald Trump, and I would rather not continue to think of those people as either stupid or malicious.
That said, I cannot seem to shake this opinion. Donald Trump's campaign was largely based on a) demonstrable falsehoods and b) promises to cause harm to others. These are facts. Therefore, I believe that anyone who voted for Trump must have either done so out of stupidity (or at the very least ignorance), or the desire to cause harm.
Examples of malicious voters:
* Some individuals support Trump's objectives of deporting illegal aliens without mercy or subjectivity. Others support his objective of discrimination against Muslims. Anyone who supports either of these views is exhibiting a malicious nature to his or her fellow human beings.
* Some individuals voted for Trump to "shake things up" or "watch the world burn". These are also malicious reasons to elect a president, as the outcome of "shaking things up" inevitably implies causing harm to a great many people.
* Anyone who did not support these views but voted for Trump anyway exhibited malice through complacency and apathy.
Examples of stupid voters:
* Some people believed the demonstrable falsehoods espoused by the Trump campaign. These people are either willfully ignorant, or just too stupid to notice that they were being lied to. One example of a demonstrable lie by the Trump campaign was that Trump would "drain the swamp" by doing away with cronyism and eliminating corrupt politicians from government. He did the exact opposite by nominating career politicians like Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. There are also countless examples of Donald Trump claiming never to have said or done things that audio and video evidence prove he has done and said.
* Some people believed Donald Trump would stand up for the American people, namely the working class, instead of continuing to support corporatism like many of his predecessors. The cabinet nominations of Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, for example, disprove this claim. While it may not have been possible to know that Trump would nominate such individuals to positions of power prior to the election, his close ties to individuals in the business world made this (ultimately false) promise unlikely from the beginning. Furthermore, Trump's beliefs contradict a majority of Americans on a number of issues, including the NSA, recreational marijuana, and abortion.
EDIT: I wanted to get the discussion going, but I do have more to add.
* Another example of stupidity among Trump supporters: Trump consistently utilizes low-brow [propaganda techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) (literally, just about every single one listed on Wikipedia) and informal diction specifically to appeal to voters that are below average intelligence and will be unlikely to pick up on these techniques.
* Many Trump supporters agree with Trump's objectively incorrect views on issues like global climate change. This is a result of either stupidity or willful ignorance.
So please, help me to change this admittedly harmful and negative view.
**EDIT 2:** I've awarded deltas, and seem to be getting undue negativity uncharacteristic of this sub, so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks for your comments. | 1,485,211,923 | mgraunk | dctg0q7 | dctfi0k | 5 | 3 |
CMV: Your gender is determined solely by the sex you are born as.
My reasoning is as follows: For the majority of human history, the collective view of gender has been that it describes physical sex, and the cultural significance tied to each of the sexes. Terms like "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl" were created with the intention of describing a person by their age and sex in conjunction. Any further connotation to the terms were set there not because that's truly how it is, and gender is something different from sex, but by cultural norms and social ideas about the sexes: stereotypes and gender roles. In western society, and most societies, gender roles have historically been set in place to benefit men (adult males) at the deficit of women (adult females).
Therefore, if someone is born one sex, but feels like another, either due to psychological discomfort with the state of their body, or feeling rejected by society at large for having a personality that doesn't conform to their sex's gender role, they are suffering from a mental illness. The idea that you actually are a man if you were born as the female sex, because you feel like one, or look like one, or act how people expect a man to act, is a delusion set in place by deeper psychological factors. Encouraging the delusion is cruel, because like any other insecurity about the body, if you try to fix your view of yourself by changing it, you're just going to find something new that bothers you. The dysphoria doesn't go away, it just gets briefly remedied by the steps of transition, and returns in a new way next time. The only way to escape this vicious cycle is through proper psychological help and dealing with the root of your problems.
This is not an insult, or an attempt to undermine people who are trans. There is nothing wrong with having a mental illness, nor is it the person's fault for being ill. However, it's cruel to someone to enable them towards self destructive behaviors, like trying to treat insecurity with expensive and risky cosmetic surgery. My view is based on what I've personally perceived as a woman who is dysphoric and has wanted to be male most of their life, it is not an outsider's perspective. Wanting to be a man, and actually being a man, are not one in the same.
Edit: Alright. I've read and replied to a lot of comments. I've given out a few deltas, and I consider my views on this changed. Thanks for engaging with me everyone, and have a good one. | The dysphoria doesn't go away - Except it does.
Also from own experience: I was friends with a trans-male activist and he introduced me to about 20 trans friends, living normal mundane lives as men. One of them had taken testosterone supplements since 10 years.
Their dysphoria disappeared. Most described their life quality going up a lot. Some had almost crippling feelings of dysphoria/anxiety/depression that made them unable to go to school/work. These were lifted the further the transition process continued. All of the older transmen had stable, almost boring lives.
Also please be aware that dysphoria=/=insecurity.
Dysphoria is a deep rooted feeling of wrongness, to the point where you feel like a person with a wrong body and don't recognize yourself in the mirror. That's how one transman described it.
He had still insecurities about scars or stretchmarks, but that is something different.
I am sure there are other mental illnesses or personal issues that can lead people to believe to be trans. I don't know about the transition process in the US, but in Germany you have to be about 1 year at least in specialized therapy and there is a long period where you have to dress/act as desired gender (also supervised) before you get allowed to hormone therapy. That eliminates people who just had a naive idea, were confused or had some mental illness.
I observed "naive ideas" two times among friends/acquaintances. One never got beyond the second therapy session and told me it was just her hating her body, the other was actually intersex and needed psychological support with that.
(If you have other questions, feel free to ask) | So, many unusual things can happen during human development. A person with two X chromosomes who is exposed to high levels of androgens can develop as male. A person with XY chromosomes whose cells don't respond well to androgens can develop as female. A person can develop too few limbs, or two sets of reproductive organs. An embryo can split into *two entirely separate people*, or, even more unusually, split into two *partially* separate people.
Given all the unusual developmental things that can happen, is it that odd to think that a person might develop a brain that is expecting a male body, but female sex characteristics? This idea is backed up by studies of brain structure/activity that show statistically significant differences between men and women, and show that trans people's brains better match their identity gender than their birth sex.
Side note:
> The dysphoria doesn't go away, it just gets briefly remedied by the steps of transition, and returns in a new way next time. "
This is demonstrably false. Transition is the medically accepted treatment for gender dysphoria for a reason. Do you think you have better information than the people who are experts in the field? | 5pv7l2 | CMV: Your gender is determined solely by the sex you are born as. | My reasoning is as follows: For the majority of human history, the collective view of gender has been that it describes physical sex, and the cultural significance tied to each of the sexes. Terms like "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl" were created with the intention of describing a person by their age and sex in conjunction. Any further connotation to the terms were set there not because that's truly how it is, and gender is something different from sex, but by cultural norms and social ideas about the sexes: stereotypes and gender roles. In western society, and most societies, gender roles have historically been set in place to benefit men (adult males) at the deficit of women (adult females).
Therefore, if someone is born one sex, but feels like another, either due to psychological discomfort with the state of their body, or feeling rejected by society at large for having a personality that doesn't conform to their sex's gender role, they are suffering from a mental illness. The idea that you actually are a man if you were born as the female sex, because you feel like one, or look like one, or act how people expect a man to act, is a delusion set in place by deeper psychological factors. Encouraging the delusion is cruel, because like any other insecurity about the body, if you try to fix your view of yourself by changing it, you're just going to find something new that bothers you. The dysphoria doesn't go away, it just gets briefly remedied by the steps of transition, and returns in a new way next time. The only way to escape this vicious cycle is through proper psychological help and dealing with the root of your problems.
This is not an insult, or an attempt to undermine people who are trans. There is nothing wrong with having a mental illness, nor is it the person's fault for being ill. However, it's cruel to someone to enable them towards self destructive behaviors, like trying to treat insecurity with expensive and risky cosmetic surgery. My view is based on what I've personally perceived as a woman who is dysphoric and has wanted to be male most of their life, it is not an outsider's perspective. Wanting to be a man, and actually being a man, are not one in the same.
Edit: Alright. I've read and replied to a lot of comments. I've given out a few deltas, and I consider my views on this changed. Thanks for engaging with me everyone, and have a good one. | 1,485,249,677 | okay76 | dcu6nz0 | dcu608a | 19 | 1 |
CMV: Everyone should be liberal.
Now hear me out, I'm not referring to the political liberal, per se. It does have political ramifications, which I'll elaborate on later, and is also the reason I'm writing this because I feel I'm too judgemental. I'm referring to the dictionary definition of liberal, the meaning of which I believe has been lost in politics. I agree with most of the definitions, but 2 of the definitions stick out to me the most. First, open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. Secondly, free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. I think that both of these attitudes are crucial to the advancement of humanity and should be adopted by everyone.
On the topic of sticking to one's roots, I think it is a worthy goal. However, one should always be open to a new perspective even if it conflicts with those roots. It's fine to reject it after consideration, but too often I see people reject new ideas simply because they are different. Science is a great example of why I think everyone should be liberal. If people never sought out new ideas and perspectives, simply staying with the tradition they were comfortable with, then humanity would still be stuck in the dark ages. Questioning the norm was necessary for people to improve the quality of life for all, and that same logic should apply today.
To take a more political spin, conservative typically refers to traditional values by definition. It is fine to support conservative values, but only if one is also willing to consider alternatives as well. If after genuinely considering those alternatives, the tradition is found to be better, so be it. However, that openness to considering those ideas is imperative now more than ever. So, CMV.
| You are talking about the aggregate. And, in the aggregate, widespread openness to new ideas might be a good thing. For individuals, though, I don't think it is universal.
(1) First, particularly those that are at the upper end of the status hierarchy, there isn't much to be gained. Liberalism, in fact, threatens their personal position.
(2) Similarly, many traditional ideas create an alternate status hierarchy (think religious purity). Liberalism as you describe is threatening for individuals that pull on those ideas for most of their sense of identity, too.
(3) People with tenuous life positions are wary of change, and with good reason. They are as unlikely as those at the top of the status hierarchy to be open to new ideas, as they have more important things to worry about. | To sum up, you believe the liberal vs. conservative argument is over how much the currently accepted foundations of society (the nuclear family and religion, etc.) ultimately matter in running an effective civilization?
This would be a good explanation for social issues, but it doesn't seem to fit neatly into an explanation for economic issues. OP seems to be focused on the social aspects but I'm curious about the other side as well. | 5pvsw6 | CMV: Everyone should be liberal. | Now hear me out, I'm not referring to the political liberal, per se. It does have political ramifications, which I'll elaborate on later, and is also the reason I'm writing this because I feel I'm too judgemental. I'm referring to the dictionary definition of liberal, the meaning of which I believe has been lost in politics. I agree with most of the definitions, but 2 of the definitions stick out to me the most. First, open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. Secondly, free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. I think that both of these attitudes are crucial to the advancement of humanity and should be adopted by everyone.
On the topic of sticking to one's roots, I think it is a worthy goal. However, one should always be open to a new perspective even if it conflicts with those roots. It's fine to reject it after consideration, but too often I see people reject new ideas simply because they are different. Science is a great example of why I think everyone should be liberal. If people never sought out new ideas and perspectives, simply staying with the tradition they were comfortable with, then humanity would still be stuck in the dark ages. Questioning the norm was necessary for people to improve the quality of life for all, and that same logic should apply today.
To take a more political spin, conservative typically refers to traditional values by definition. It is fine to support conservative values, but only if one is also willing to consider alternatives as well. If after genuinely considering those alternatives, the tradition is found to be better, so be it. However, that openness to considering those ideas is imperative now more than ever. So, CMV.
| 1,485,260,412 | typicalspecial | dcu9mh1 | dcu9df6 | 2 | 1 |
CMV: I don't think anyone will ever win on the issue of Abortion
By this question I mean I have always felt that in the 44 years since Roe vs.Wade the pro choice and pro life camps have stuck to their guns. I feel people who are pro-life will not be able to become pro-choice. And people who are pro choice will not be able to become pro life.
My main point is people are so stuck in their views and and unwilling to compromise that abortion will always be an issue. I feel it will never be solved and even if a government enacts harsh anti-abortion laws, that won't stop a person from finding a way to get an abortion.
I just don't understand why one side wants to win when in reality they will never truly win. Please help CMV | The issue of abortion is one of body autonomy - the woman has the right to not have her body used as a host against her will for a period of time where the "guest" has no viability on its own.
I can see a scenario in the future where our medical technology has advanced to the point where it is both feasible and inexpensive enough to gestate the child outside the womb so that this fundamental issue ceases to be true. If we can bring a child to term without the use of the woman as host, then there is no violation of body autonomy and no need to have abortion laws. | Depends what you mean by "win." It's entirely possible for abortion to be legal and be entirely privately funded. That's sort of a win for both sides. | 5pwa9n | CMV: I don't think anyone will ever win on the issue of Abortion | By this question I mean I have always felt that in the 44 years since Roe vs.Wade the pro choice and pro life camps have stuck to their guns. I feel people who are pro-life will not be able to become pro-choice. And people who are pro choice will not be able to become pro life.
My main point is people are so stuck in their views and and unwilling to compromise that abortion will always be an issue. I feel it will never be solved and even if a government enacts harsh anti-abortion laws, that won't stop a person from finding a way to get an abortion.
I just don't understand why one side wants to win when in reality they will never truly win. Please help CMV | 1,485,266,884 | mojimbo54321 | dcub0yv | dcuar3o | 7 | 3 |
CMV:I think European policies about immigration/refugee crisis are mostly based on an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It doesn't make sense.
I think decisions regarding immigration policies/refugee crisis shouldn't be based on emotional arguments. This means that arguments like"children are dying/ X country has been bombed/Y country is in a terrible situation" should play no role when deciding about these type of policies. I think that most European policies have been based on this type of argument (until now, at least). If this type of argument is valid, then our government should increase taxation to help starving children in Africa.
Without the emotional argument immigration policies would likely follow this scheme: 1) Computing the number of people we need in our contry to have X growth - ergo accept the number of individuals until we reach break even 2) Select people based on their qualifications/ knowledge. For instance, if our country needs doctors, we favour doctors. If there is no particular need for a certain type of worker, we favour those who already speak the language.
Implementing this plan would result in less taxpayer money devoted to financial aid/resources for refugees and immigrants. This money could be used for other purposes. By contrast, by not applying a similair policy more people enter our country and more financial aid is required for them.
Note: i know that refugees and economic immigrants are two different things. I wanted to add refugees to the post because in this case the emotional argument is used more often. However, one could argue that refugees are accepted in small numbers (compared to economic immigrants, legal or not) and that those figures don't really influence our society. That's why i am using both categories.
Note2: believe it or not i have nothing against immigrants or refugees. My father was an immigrant. I just think that in this matter empathy is winning over rationality and it doesn't make sense for me.
| Immigration Policy (basically everywhere) is based on what affect the immigration will have on the country. The general consensus is that, economically, immigration [is a net positive](http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigration-who-wins-who-loses-and-why/). The link is to a Time article with a basic overview of the effects immigration has on an economy, and they're mostly positive. The article also has links to primary sources, which I suggest following if you want to learn more.
Here's a section from [the OECD with some notes on immigration and the effects](https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf).
> **Labour markets**
> * Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years.
>
> * Migrants fill important niches both in fast-growing and declining sectors of the economy.
>
> * Like the native-born, young migrants are better educated than those nearing retirement.
>
> * Migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility, notably in Europe.
>
> **The public purse**
>
> * Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits.
>
> * Labour migrants have the most positive impact on the public purse.
>
> * Employment is the single biggest determinant of migrants’ net fiscal contribution.
>
> **Economic growth**
>
> * Migration boosts the working-age population.
>
> * Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries.
>
> * Migrants also contribute to technological progress.
>
> Understanding these impacts is important if our societies are to usefully debate the role of migration. Such debates, in turn, are essential to designing policies in areas like education and employment that maximise the benefits of migration, especially by improving migrants’ employment situation.
>
> This policy mix will, of course, vary from country to country. But the fundamental question of how to maximise the benefits of migration, both for host countries and the migrants themselves, needs to be addressed by many OECD countries in coming decades, especially as rapid population ageing increases demand for migrants to make up shortfalls in the workforce.
__________________________________________
I'm not here to convince you that immigration is always a net positive and allowing it unlimited is super dope all the time because that's not the point and it's not accurate, but it does have benefits overall and the benefits to the host country is why many governments are pro-immigration. It has much less to do with helping folks as you might think. It's almost purely objective and logical. | I think your characterization of this situation is not so much about "emotional" vs "logical" and more about nationalistic interests vs global interests. You seem to be characterizing the ideal way to accept/reject refugees as one based solely on capitalistic potential, that refugees/immigrants should be judged almost entirely on what they contribute to a country's workforce.
There are a few ways to counter this argument - the one that resonates best with me is that we are all human in the end and it befits us as a species to look out for each other, regardless of talents or education - but I'll take a somewhat utilitarian tack here, since from your OP I imagine that will resonate best with you. Almost any country, especially first-world ones like those in Europe, can benefit from certain immigrants entering, no matter what - top scientists, educators, doctors, artists, etc. Even if refugees do not directly benefit a country's economy in a noticeable way, the humanitarian qualities inherent in accepting tens of thousands of them won't go unnoticed by other folks looking to flee their own countries who would tangibly impact a country's well-being. I'd posit that if, say, an Iranian nuclear physicist were trying to emigrate, they would be much more likely to consider a country that publicly cared for its refugees than one who turned away thousands at the border. | 5pwhke | CMV:I think European policies about immigration/refugee crisis are mostly based on an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It doesn't make sense. | I think decisions regarding immigration policies/refugee crisis shouldn't be based on emotional arguments. This means that arguments like"children are dying/ X country has been bombed/Y country is in a terrible situation" should play no role when deciding about these type of policies. I think that most European policies have been based on this type of argument (until now, at least). If this type of argument is valid, then our government should increase taxation to help starving children in Africa.
Without the emotional argument immigration policies would likely follow this scheme: 1) Computing the number of people we need in our contry to have X growth - ergo accept the number of individuals until we reach break even 2) Select people based on their qualifications/ knowledge. For instance, if our country needs doctors, we favour doctors. If there is no particular need for a certain type of worker, we favour those who already speak the language.
Implementing this plan would result in less taxpayer money devoted to financial aid/resources for refugees and immigrants. This money could be used for other purposes. By contrast, by not applying a similair policy more people enter our country and more financial aid is required for them.
Note: i know that refugees and economic immigrants are two different things. I wanted to add refugees to the post because in this case the emotional argument is used more often. However, one could argue that refugees are accepted in small numbers (compared to economic immigrants, legal or not) and that those figures don't really influence our society. That's why i am using both categories.
Note2: believe it or not i have nothing against immigrants or refugees. My father was an immigrant. I just think that in this matter empathy is winning over rationality and it doesn't make sense for me.
| 1,485,269,304 | Gigarow | dcudgqx | dcud2zf | 15 | 4 |
CMV: 'Free trade' deals have been a net negative for American workers
While I understand the economic principle of comparative advantage and acknowledge that 'free trade' deals have generally reduced the cost of consumer goods in the US, I believe that these free trade deals have been a net negative for American workers (specifically from a wage earning perspective).
* Comparative advantage - I agree this should hold in principle, but in reality, these comparative advantages often stem from different labor laws, environmental regulations, intellectual protection enforcement levels, etc. While that certainly lowers the prices of goods for US consumers, this does not result in a 'fair trade' or an equal playing field for US workers.
* Re-tooling / re-education programs - Again, while free trade deals have reduced prices for consumers and opened up markets for corporations (which are disproportionately owned by classes >= white-collar workers), these deals appear to have done little to help those displaced re-tool or re-educate themselves in order to find other comparable wage earning opportunities. Overall, I can't imagine that the obsolescence of vocation training/apprenticeship programs throughout the country is a good thing for American workers in general - now and into the future.
I for one would be willing to spend more for quality goods produced in the US, but I'm certainly somewhat privileged living in a thriving coastal community. Perhaps this is a highly incomplete view. If so, please CMV. Thanks.
-- Edit 1 --
I just want to emphasize that my view is that the US does not appear to have done much to protect the workers impacted by such deals, and that it is the responsibility of the US government to do so since it is the one that entered these deals in the first place.
-- Edit 2 --
Thanks for the replies. My view is definitely evolving as a result of them. I no longer attribute the damage to US workers to trade deals based on the evidence cited. But I still hold the view that the US government could have done more to ensure a more equal playing field in a globalized economy, and that its failure to do so has been a net negative for US workers.
However, I suppose that is a different view than my original one, so please consider my original view changed. Thank you!
| >Comparative advantage - I agree this should hold in principle, but in reality, these comparative advantages often stem from different labor laws, environmental regulations, intellectual protection enforcement levels, etc. While that certainly lowers the prices of goods for US consumers, this does not result in a 'fair trade' or an equal playing field for US workers.
This all seems like a discussion of absolute advantage, not comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is about the relative ease of producing multiple heterogeneous goods in different places, not about different input costs across the board.
I'd also add that most workers never worked in manufacturing. Even near its peak, manufacturing was [less than 30% of US employment.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ctwL)
So for the 70%+ of workers who don't work in manufacturing, it's been a pretty unalloyed good thing to see the prices they pay go down. | I think maybe the more general picture here is that change can be bad for some people. The people who used to make arrow heads probably thought the hunting rifle was a terrible thing. The plow put alot of farmers out of work. The industrial revolution replaced cottage industry (making things at home and selling them), which put alot of people out of work. All these people and/or their posterity found greener pastures.
I think what we see no is primarily an emotionaly response. Technology moves very fast so it's much easier to see than my above examples. Also consider that people shift their perspective to NOW. For example, polling people in Africa reveals that most people think health care has gotten WORSE when in fact it has gotten better in every way. Their expectations have shift.
Finally, do we really want to live in a world where we hang onto the jobs of tomorrow? We'd still be living trees if that's what we obsessed about. It may be worse for some Americas for this period of time, but like every other advancement(except maybe synthetic opiods, firearms and things like that), automation will probably make the world a better place | 5pxckg | CMV: 'Free trade' deals have been a net negative for American workers | While I understand the economic principle of comparative advantage and acknowledge that 'free trade' deals have generally reduced the cost of consumer goods in the US, I believe that these free trade deals have been a net negative for American workers (specifically from a wage earning perspective).
* Comparative advantage - I agree this should hold in principle, but in reality, these comparative advantages often stem from different labor laws, environmental regulations, intellectual protection enforcement levels, etc. While that certainly lowers the prices of goods for US consumers, this does not result in a 'fair trade' or an equal playing field for US workers.
* Re-tooling / re-education programs - Again, while free trade deals have reduced prices for consumers and opened up markets for corporations (which are disproportionately owned by classes >= white-collar workers), these deals appear to have done little to help those displaced re-tool or re-educate themselves in order to find other comparable wage earning opportunities. Overall, I can't imagine that the obsolescence of vocation training/apprenticeship programs throughout the country is a good thing for American workers in general - now and into the future.
I for one would be willing to spend more for quality goods produced in the US, but I'm certainly somewhat privileged living in a thriving coastal community. Perhaps this is a highly incomplete view. If so, please CMV. Thanks.
-- Edit 1 --
I just want to emphasize that my view is that the US does not appear to have done much to protect the workers impacted by such deals, and that it is the responsibility of the US government to do so since it is the one that entered these deals in the first place.
-- Edit 2 --
Thanks for the replies. My view is definitely evolving as a result of them. I no longer attribute the damage to US workers to trade deals based on the evidence cited. But I still hold the view that the US government could have done more to ensure a more equal playing field in a globalized economy, and that its failure to do so has been a net negative for US workers.
However, I suppose that is a different view than my original one, so please consider my original view changed. Thank you!
| 1,485,278,238 | rubch | dcum23h | dculvpz | 12 | 2 |
CMV:If you were eligible to vote, and didn't, you shouldn't be protesting Trump's presidency.
I'm no fan of Trump. But when I see people whom I know didn't vote (because they told me as much) on social media railing against Trump's presidency, and posting photos from their involvement in protests, it really baffles me.
Obviously peaceful protests and activism are a pillar of a democracy, and they're great ways to show solidarity and ensure that your voice is heard. But I just feel like, given the low voter turnout for millennials (and for Americans in general) people are really overlooking the absolute best way to make sure their voices are heard - which is to vote.
So if you sat home on election day because you figured "there's no way this country will elect Trump," and now you're outraged that Donald Trump is our president, I say you only have yourself to blame.
| I agree with you in principle.
On the other hand, I can imagine some people are now feeling a lot [like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwQW3KW3DCc) They make be regretting their decision not to vote.
Would you rather live in a world where:
(1) Everyone who didn't vote stays home and doesn't complain or protest.
or
(2) Those who regret not voting join in protesting?
I'd argue that those riled up enough now to protest are probably more likely to vote next election. Should we discourage them?
I'd also argue that at this point, the more protest the better, even if some of the protestors are hypocrites who should have voted. | I partially agree with you. The thing you have to realize is that every major news network predicted a 99% victory for Hillary clinton, she was meant to win by a huge land slide, and look what happened. Given this, it makes sense for lower voter turn out because the media has already shoved it down your throat that Hillary will win. This lead a lot of people to not bother with waiting hours in line because all the algorithms, and all the computers are saying Hillary won. This usually doesn't occur in elections, and I can honestly forgive people who did not vote, but want to participate. If this wasn't the case, and the media was portraying it as a tight race than you are absolutely correct, but given the circumstance I feel a need to allow a little wiggle room for these people. | 5pxz50 | CMV:If you were eligible to vote, and didn't, you shouldn't be protesting Trump's presidency. | I'm no fan of Trump. But when I see people whom I know didn't vote (because they told me as much) on social media railing against Trump's presidency, and posting photos from their involvement in protests, it really baffles me.
Obviously peaceful protests and activism are a pillar of a democracy, and they're great ways to show solidarity and ensure that your voice is heard. But I just feel like, given the low voter turnout for millennials (and for Americans in general) people are really overlooking the absolute best way to make sure their voices are heard - which is to vote.
So if you sat home on election day because you figured "there's no way this country will elect Trump," and now you're outraged that Donald Trump is our president, I say you only have yourself to blame.
| 1,485,284,345 | GhostOfGuyFieri | dcup4we | dcup3gr | 87 | 2 |
CMV: I think automation and artificial intelligence will lead to the need for capitalism to be replaced.
I believe with more jobs becoming automated, the amount of people who can produce diminishes, and succeeding in a capitalistic society requires being able to produce and generate profit. I think that, while production is increasing, the amount of people profiting from it is shrinking. Automation is already replacing manufacturing jobs and many manual labor jobs. I think that even the human mind is becoming less necessary as computing power increases and artificial intelligence improves.
I think, in the future, the majority of humans will no longer serve a purpose in our society. Computers will be able to do everything we can faster and cheaper. People won't be able to earn money if they can not produce or provide worth to society. Without money, people won't be able to consume the products of capitalism.
I don't know what sort of system would best replace it, but I believe the current system is in the early stages of collapsing. | > I believe the current system is in the early stages of collapsing.
No, it's not.
The degree of automation that is *actually happening* right now, is not even remotely special compared to the industrial revolution in the 19th century, or the rise of workplace computers in the late 20th. Some jobs get replaced and the money spared by the services they used to provide getting more profitable, means other jobs becoming viable for the first time.
Hence why unemployment rates are nothing outstanding, (in fact, quite low in the US).
We still have plenty of forms of manual labor that computers can't affordably take over, from household chores, fruit picking, and movie theater operation, to horse stable handling, assembly line supervision, and fishing.
Some of these could have been replaced decades ago by not even AIs, but simple gizmos, but hiring people is often cheaper than designing and mass manufacturing gizmos for various fringe service needs. Others, like construction work, are deceptively complex in terms of programmability, in spite of not requiring "smarts" by human standards.
Then there are the jobs that require the full range of human emotions, self-expressiveness, and intuition: Teachers, political journalists, party organizers, animaton directors.
For AI to replace *these jobs*, they would need to truly simulate the scope of the human mind, and if *that* happened, we had bigger problems than what to do with capitalism.
Something that's like a human but smarter, (and digital so it can use it's smartness to manually enhance it's own smartness ad infinitum), would be capable of solving any engineering problem that is physically imaginable to solve, starting with the transmutation of any matter into another, and with the eternal preservation of human minds and bodies.
A true AI would influence capitalism much in the same way the sun going nova tomorrow would influence the ending of Game of Thrones. There would indeed be influences, but you are missing the point. | I am not going to really say your wrong, but I don't think the time line will be as short as a lot of people expect. Since the industrial revolution really smart experts have claimed we were 20-50 years from a society where one man could make everything and no one would have any jobs. In the 200+ years since then we are still 20-50 years away from that. Because as tech replaces jobs most of the displaced people find work in other fields. And yes there are tuns of articles claiming it is different this time, but there were tuns of articles in the 1900 about how the it was different then. And then again the in 50s and the 80s when computers showed up. Every time everyone says this is the time we are all replaced by automation.
Part of the problem is you are compairing humans vs machines and that is not relevant. The question is does human capital have any value. As long as people are capable of providing value people will have jobs. Until you have an AI so grate as to make humans unless, you will still have humans in the workforce even if it is just to pick up the things the robots drop.
So I will admit that sure, there will probably be a time when this happens, but I don't trust our ability to predict it until it actually happens. | 5pyzxa | CMV: I think automation and artificial intelligence will lead to the need for capitalism to be replaced. | I believe with more jobs becoming automated, the amount of people who can produce diminishes, and succeeding in a capitalistic society requires being able to produce and generate profit. I think that, while production is increasing, the amount of people profiting from it is shrinking. Automation is already replacing manufacturing jobs and many manual labor jobs. I think that even the human mind is becoming less necessary as computing power increases and artificial intelligence improves.
I think, in the future, the majority of humans will no longer serve a purpose in our society. Computers will be able to do everything we can faster and cheaper. People won't be able to earn money if they can not produce or provide worth to society. Without money, people won't be able to consume the products of capitalism.
I don't know what sort of system would best replace it, but I believe the current system is in the early stages of collapsing. | 1,485,293,988 | bochain45 | dcv1h0q | dcv0nzj | 15 | 6 |
CMV: I strongly support legal gay marriage, but I wouldn't support legal plural marriage.
I actually struggle with this a bit, so I invite you to CMV. I struggle because I have always been a strong supporter of making gay marriage legal. Two consenting adults should have that right. But I don't feel the same way about plural marriage; consent or not I don't think it should be legal. It's possible I would feel differently if I believed that most of the people that would exercise this right would do so out of love and true consent, but I think that the majority would be cult-like organizations like the FLDS. I don't believe those women (and girls) are truly consenting. Can you truly consent to something if you've been raised believing that the only way to God is to marry your great-uncle Jimmy. It's an interesting question I guess, because we probably consent to a lot of things that maybe we wouldn't if we were raised differently.
Anyway, I get that there are some free and open adults who could consent to a healthy plural marriage, but opening that up would result in even more abuse by the many many cults that still secretly practice polygamy.
Of course there are also the tax implications, which would be tricky at best. That system would be very open to abuse.
There it is. Please CMV.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | OP, it sounds like you are applying opportunity for abuse unequally here.
You seem to agree that consenting adults should be able to marry who they please, so I think we've already passed the hardest part, now we're only discussing the number. Being forced or coerced into marriage is not only in violation of your litmus test, but is in violation of current marriage laws. In the discussion of polyamory, it's probably safe for us to assume the laws will be similar, just without a number limit.
Now, if the crux of your argument is that polyamory is at a higher risk to abuse due to religious, social, or other reasons, you are entering into dangerous territory. You're no longer concerned about codifying the rights of consenting adults, but attempting to stamp out bad behavior at everyone's expense. (Keep in mind that in both hypotheticals, forced or child marriages are illegal). Also, there are many other dangerous arguments that could follow this same logic. All cultures, religions, and demographics come with varying statistics. If I can prove that marriages between X group lead to more STDs or abuse or other factors, would you be in favor of limiting the rights between consenting individuals of that demographic?
I guess what you need to ask yourself is: is the possibility of abuse really a good reason to be for or against something? If it is, do you apply it equally across all issues? What do you try next when you make illegal acts even more illegal-er and it doesn't work? | And some might say having other women in the marriage who could exert their power upon the male was some measure of support in a society which didn't have much concept of spousal abuse or any reasonable means of solving marital disputes on the frontier. Utah was one of the first states to allow women to divorce without having to prove some type of wrong. This would not discredit your conclusion fully, but it would lend some doubt that it was so cut and dry. There were Mormon women's groups who were the MOST vocal in criticism of the Supreme Court's decision concerning polygamous marriages, many found plural marriages a net benefit for them. Furthermore, the women in the marriage had to AGREE to bring in another woman into the plural marriage in order for it to be considered valid!
Also, since polygamous marriages are currently illegal in the United States, most of our data comes from societies with minimal safety nets for abused women or children in the first place. I think a practical calculus can be made: Competition for more women/scarcity of women, but this would assume plural marriages will be popular and/or women would not have marriages with plural men.
Honestly, I find plural marriages really disconcerting on a personal level, but to assume the people entering into these marriages were not rational actors, or some of those fundamental conditions that made them enter this type of relationship might not reoccur, is very close-minded. | 5pz8od | CMV: I strongly support legal gay marriage, but I wouldn't support legal plural marriage. | I actually struggle with this a bit, so I invite you to CMV. I struggle because I have always been a strong supporter of making gay marriage legal. Two consenting adults should have that right. But I don't feel the same way about plural marriage; consent or not I don't think it should be legal. It's possible I would feel differently if I believed that most of the people that would exercise this right would do so out of love and true consent, but I think that the majority would be cult-like organizations like the FLDS. I don't believe those women (and girls) are truly consenting. Can you truly consent to something if you've been raised believing that the only way to God is to marry your great-uncle Jimmy. It's an interesting question I guess, because we probably consent to a lot of things that maybe we wouldn't if we were raised differently.
Anyway, I get that there are some free and open adults who could consent to a healthy plural marriage, but opening that up would result in even more abuse by the many many cults that still secretly practice polygamy.
Of course there are also the tax implications, which would be tricky at best. That system would be very open to abuse.
There it is. Please CMV.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | 1,485,296,334 | goldenrule78 | dcv5g1n | dcv358f | 9 | 1 |
CMV: Donald Trump is going to be the next Ronald Reagan
Hear me out. Reagan was a member of a populist movement with a large amount of political criticism because he was an actor. He had views that many thought challenged liberties. He was a damn good President that did things to aid both parties, and he did so while supporting causes he believed in. Trump is the first Candidacy where we have an overwhelming amount of information, we can refer to this phoenomenon as the "meme race of 2016" because it really was all about the memes, which before this race were more of a psychological phoenomenon, and not a picture-based circlejerk. We also have Clinton, one of the most evil, CP-loving, Illuminati-ass opponents that was the shoo-in to win who DIDN'T get her way. I think this is largely due to populism, or the needs of real american people. Why is it bad that [The president] he's listening to our voices for once?
| Ronald Reagan granted anmesty to 13 million illegal immigrants and almost single-handedly turned the drug war into a race war with his policies on crack cocaine. These are things we are still paying for and feeling the effects of today. | It shouldn't be about the memes or the criticism or his opponent in the election though. It should be about policy. Do you think that Trump aligns closely to Reagan in the actions he's going to take in office? | 5pzrmx | CMV: Donald Trump is going to be the next Ronald Reagan | Hear me out. Reagan was a member of a populist movement with a large amount of political criticism because he was an actor. He had views that many thought challenged liberties. He was a damn good President that did things to aid both parties, and he did so while supporting causes he believed in. Trump is the first Candidacy where we have an overwhelming amount of information, we can refer to this phoenomenon as the "meme race of 2016" because it really was all about the memes, which before this race were more of a psychological phoenomenon, and not a picture-based circlejerk. We also have Clinton, one of the most evil, CP-loving, Illuminati-ass opponents that was the shoo-in to win who DIDN'T get her way. I think this is largely due to populism, or the needs of real american people. Why is it bad that [The president] he's listening to our voices for once?
| 1,485,301,791 | medusa378 | dcv4kcs | dcv4h4c | 14 | 3 |
CMV: Abolishing the Electoral College Would Only Make Elections Worse
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Since the nomination of Donald Trump, I've seen an arguement on a lot of majority left-leaning subreddits that the electoral college doesn't represent the people, and thus needs to be removed and replaced with the popular vote. However, I feel that doing this would be a catastrophic mistake for America, throwing it into what is esentially Ochlocracy, a government system that the founding fathers deliberatly designed the voting process to avoid. All of my concerns stem from the concept of Tryanny of the Majority, a concept that discusses how full democracy can be exploited by fear and hatred and used to rise up against minority groups.
* The Minority and Fearmongering
One of the biggest concerns about this is how pure democracy will be used to effect the minority. While, arguably, the more facist of the canidates won this election, he won this through a system of checks and balances that allow for all opinions to be considered, a system where a facist leader arguably can't rise as easily.
If we look at history, the rise of facist leaders came from charisma, fearmongering, and a general sway of the population. See how facism began to rise in European countries: the majority of the population irritated at their previous leaders, such as Italians angry that their pride is fading away, or the Germans angry that the Jewish people caused them to loose their chance at power. Historically, the ability for a facist leader to take control has always been through the needs of the people. Now, while you can argue that while a majority democrat country would most likely prevent this from happening, that is only seeing breifly into the future. Keep in mind that both something could irritate the right into seeking the majority of the power due to certian scapegoats, such as "PC culture", and use it to rewrite constitutional and human rights, or hell, even be used by the left side to do the same exact thing against other scapegoats and other constitutional rights. In the end, all elections would boil down to would be fearmongering, as it is easily exploited out of people.
* The Ignorant Voter
While I won't go into it directly, part of this arguement can especially be applied to the above statement. The point I want to make with this is that the popular vote being soley based on the people, some education issues would get in the way
- Only one third of Americans can name the three branches of our federal government: executive, legislative, judicial
- Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.
- Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
- Half of American Millennials score below the minimum standard of literacy proficiency
- In tests recorded from 22 major 1st world countries, the US scored dead last in terms of education
So you see, a lot of the US is ignorant. It doesn't know much about its own system, its history, or much of anything in general. While I'm not saying that the US is too stupid for democracy, I personally don't believe that the US president should be determined 100% by people who don't know anything about freedom of speech. While the electoral college is flawed, it still allows checks and balances based on reactionary and compuslory voting.
* Pure Dominance
While the arguement "California will control elections" isn't really a good once since electoral college abolishment would imply no state system, I think there is a valid point. Some of the post populated urban areas, as seen from elections, are overwhelmingly liberal. While I don't think that liberal opinions on their own are bad, I think a system based on popular vote, due to these concentraded reigions, would allow for one party to keep office for years upon years. Having one party control our country for extended amounts of time would cause severe disparity between parties and would disturb balance in the system.
tl;dr: If you hate facism, and love political diversity, having a system based on mob rule would *not* be a good idea
To be clear, I don't hold these as pure facts, I hold these as my logic and reasoning behind why the electoral college is importiant to democracy and constitutional values, and why abolishing it would only maximize the problems we face today.
| Whatever the system of elections, there's ALWAYS a way to game the system.
The Founding Fathers were not creating a country, they were trying to tie together 13 countries. This is why there is a Senate (equal representation among STATES, even if one has 500,000 people and one has 35,000,000. The welfare of the larger state has more consequence than that of the little one, if only because the there's 70 times as many people.
For the Electoral College system, the gaming of the system is to win narrow victories in enough states to win the election, and to hell with the states that are not close. This means that a handful of states get the vast majority of attention from presidential candidates (and policies tailored to those swing states) while ignoring the majority of the country.
A popular vote would get the candidates away from the swing states and back into the realm of the entire country. If California, New York, etc are pretty much ignored in presidential elections, because everybody knows where they are going. That's a sixth of the population without any real voice.
Your primary concern of pure democracy is tyranny of the majority. A popular vote will not change that. A Constitution and a Bill of Rights changes that. By ensuring that some rights are not open to arbitrary restriction, the will of the majority is circumscribed. Also, Checks and Balances in government are made so that a single, popular leader cannot take over the entire government. And, as we will soon see, the Electoral College system is not able to stop that particular scenario, especially when the Leader has a subservient Congress and toothless Judiciary. | Nonsense.
No right has ever been defended by people concerned about the "tyranny of the majority". No oppression has ever been caused by too much democracy, or a voting system that is too fair. If we took seriously the argument that some large groups will act sectionally to oppress others, we wouldn't be defending small states. We'd be defending small ethnic groups, gender minorities and the poor. You wouldn't give more votes to people from West Virginia, you'd give more votes to black people and women. The system defends not human rights but sectional interests, and was meant to. Interests like slavery. Like Jim Crow.
In countries without an electoral gerrymander, you don't get geographic persecution by the way.
The electoral college does not ensure the choice of the best educated will be picked. The electoral college does not ensure that voters will have a range of parties to chose from. The electoral college does not prevent one party from maintaining control for over a decade (which both parties have done).
Crucially, the electoral college does not ensure the choice of the American people will be respected. Sometimes it gives the Presidency to the person Americans voted AGAINST. This is unacceptable. Get rid of it. | 5q0bbg | CMV: Abolishing the Electoral College Would Only Make Elections Worse | "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Since the nomination of Donald Trump, I've seen an arguement on a lot of majority left-leaning subreddits that the electoral college doesn't represent the people, and thus needs to be removed and replaced with the popular vote. However, I feel that doing this would be a catastrophic mistake for America, throwing it into what is esentially Ochlocracy, a government system that the founding fathers deliberatly designed the voting process to avoid. All of my concerns stem from the concept of Tryanny of the Majority, a concept that discusses how full democracy can be exploited by fear and hatred and used to rise up against minority groups.
* The Minority and Fearmongering
One of the biggest concerns about this is how pure democracy will be used to effect the minority. While, arguably, the more facist of the canidates won this election, he won this through a system of checks and balances that allow for all opinions to be considered, a system where a facist leader arguably can't rise as easily.
If we look at history, the rise of facist leaders came from charisma, fearmongering, and a general sway of the population. See how facism began to rise in European countries: the majority of the population irritated at their previous leaders, such as Italians angry that their pride is fading away, or the Germans angry that the Jewish people caused them to loose their chance at power. Historically, the ability for a facist leader to take control has always been through the needs of the people. Now, while you can argue that while a majority democrat country would most likely prevent this from happening, that is only seeing breifly into the future. Keep in mind that both something could irritate the right into seeking the majority of the power due to certian scapegoats, such as "PC culture", and use it to rewrite constitutional and human rights, or hell, even be used by the left side to do the same exact thing against other scapegoats and other constitutional rights. In the end, all elections would boil down to would be fearmongering, as it is easily exploited out of people.
* The Ignorant Voter
While I won't go into it directly, part of this arguement can especially be applied to the above statement. The point I want to make with this is that the popular vote being soley based on the people, some education issues would get in the way
- Only one third of Americans can name the three branches of our federal government: executive, legislative, judicial
- Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.
- Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
- Half of American Millennials score below the minimum standard of literacy proficiency
- In tests recorded from 22 major 1st world countries, the US scored dead last in terms of education
So you see, a lot of the US is ignorant. It doesn't know much about its own system, its history, or much of anything in general. While I'm not saying that the US is too stupid for democracy, I personally don't believe that the US president should be determined 100% by people who don't know anything about freedom of speech. While the electoral college is flawed, it still allows checks and balances based on reactionary and compuslory voting.
* Pure Dominance
While the arguement "California will control elections" isn't really a good once since electoral college abolishment would imply no state system, I think there is a valid point. Some of the post populated urban areas, as seen from elections, are overwhelmingly liberal. While I don't think that liberal opinions on their own are bad, I think a system based on popular vote, due to these concentraded reigions, would allow for one party to keep office for years upon years. Having one party control our country for extended amounts of time would cause severe disparity between parties and would disturb balance in the system.
tl;dr: If you hate facism, and love political diversity, having a system based on mob rule would *not* be a good idea
To be clear, I don't hold these as pure facts, I hold these as my logic and reasoning behind why the electoral college is importiant to democracy and constitutional values, and why abolishing it would only maximize the problems we face today.
| 1,485,307,874 | TheRachhySauce | dcvcdpi | dcvaojs | 21 | 8 |
CMV:Winston Churchill was no better than Hitler
Hitler was responsible for deaths of 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of other people.
Also, he had concentration camps and was a bigot, but he modeled his policies on another abominable bigot, who inspired him and his crimes - on Churchill, and British rule of India (that Hitler intended as a model in his brutal oppression of the Slavs and Jews).
Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost. Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and *British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children).* British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children. Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin. Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people. He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities. Both Churchill and Hitler were in favor of eugenics.
Hitler was a kindly man, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. He suffered from flatulence.
Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude.
Death toll:
Hitler and Nazi Germany : 30 million (11 million in direct genocide)
Churchill and British Empire: 1 billion (7 million Indians in one genocidal incident alone, rarely mentioned today)
Both Churchill and Hitler were bigots, for eugenics, use of poison gas and concentration camps, Hitler in fact emulated Churchill.
Yet due to propaganda, their images are distorted.
Both were clearly criminals. Can you objectively say which one was THE greatest criminal of the 20th century - Hitler or Churchill?
Clearly, both were racist, Churchill even to greater extent than Hitler, but Churchill managed to get his record cleared from history textbooks. Does that censorship make him a better man?"
I know that Hitler was a evil man, and this person calling him a kindly man has something wrong with him, but is our perception of Churchill totally wrong because before today me and most people though of Churchill as an inspirational leader who thought against racism, but this page begs to differ.
In addition, Ideologically, Churchill and Hitler's opinion on other people would be splitting hairs.
>I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. **I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.**
-Churchill addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain is justified in deciding the fate of Palestine
>Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed
-Churchill, on the independence movement in India, 1930
>"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."
-Comment on Gandhi's meeting with the British Viceroy of India, addressing the Council of the West Essex Unionist Association (23 February 1931); as quoted in "Mr Churchill on India" in The Times (24 February 1931)
>I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.
>I hope it would be bitter and bloody!
-Churchill, upon hearing news of conflict between the Muslim League and Indian Congress, July 1940
>If food is scarce, why isn't Gandhi dead yet?
Churchill's witty retort to British Secretary of State for India Leo Amery's telegram for food stock to relieve the famine of Bengal in 1943 (4 million peopled starved to death.)
>Relief would do no good, Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply
And to those who say that Churchill was just a "product of his time"(same logic could be applied to hitler)
>On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane... I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's -Leo Amery, British Secretary of State for India
He even knew he would be vindicated by history and that his atrocious actions would try to be swept under the rug.
>"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"
| >Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people,
No, that would be the [japanese that invaded burma,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_conquest_of_Burma) and took all the rice that used to be shipped to bengal.
>while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost.
this is just idiotic.
>Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children).
Churchill was for using non-lethal gas instead of dropping bombs.
>British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children.
And churchill, at the time, was a war reporter who had nothing to do with that.
| Sources for any of this, that don't come from alt-right propaganda? | 5q0fd0 | CMV:Winston Churchill was no better than Hitler | Hitler was responsible for deaths of 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of other people.
Also, he had concentration camps and was a bigot, but he modeled his policies on another abominable bigot, who inspired him and his crimes - on Churchill, and British rule of India (that Hitler intended as a model in his brutal oppression of the Slavs and Jews).
Churchill was responsible for starvation of 7 millions of Indian people, while British rule is responsible for genocide that resulted one billion of Indian lives lost. Churchill was unashamed racist, was in favor of use of poison gas on "uncivilized tribes" (Hitler used Zyklon B on Jews, and *British used mustard gas on Iraqi women and children).* British invented concentration camps in the Boer war, killing women and children. Hitler imitated British in every way, but racist theories and policies, implemented by Churchill in during and after WWI, and in WWII are of British origin. Hitler spared what he hoped to be his potential allies in Dunkirk, but Churchill believed higher race are British, not all Germanic people. He killed millions in firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and many other cities. Both Churchill and Hitler were in favor of eugenics.
Hitler was a kindly man, vegetarian who didn't drink or smoke. He suffered from flatulence.
Churchill was an ill tempered alcoholic, who smoked fat cigars and held his meetings in nude.
Death toll:
Hitler and Nazi Germany : 30 million (11 million in direct genocide)
Churchill and British Empire: 1 billion (7 million Indians in one genocidal incident alone, rarely mentioned today)
Both Churchill and Hitler were bigots, for eugenics, use of poison gas and concentration camps, Hitler in fact emulated Churchill.
Yet due to propaganda, their images are distorted.
Both were clearly criminals. Can you objectively say which one was THE greatest criminal of the 20th century - Hitler or Churchill?
Clearly, both were racist, Churchill even to greater extent than Hitler, but Churchill managed to get his record cleared from history textbooks. Does that censorship make him a better man?"
I know that Hitler was a evil man, and this person calling him a kindly man has something wrong with him, but is our perception of Churchill totally wrong because before today me and most people though of Churchill as an inspirational leader who thought against racism, but this page begs to differ.
In addition, Ideologically, Churchill and Hitler's opinion on other people would be splitting hairs.
>I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. **I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.**
-Churchill addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain is justified in deciding the fate of Palestine
>Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed
-Churchill, on the independence movement in India, 1930
>"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."
-Comment on Gandhi's meeting with the British Viceroy of India, addressing the Council of the West Essex Unionist Association (23 February 1931); as quoted in "Mr Churchill on India" in The Times (24 February 1931)
>I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.
>I hope it would be bitter and bloody!
-Churchill, upon hearing news of conflict between the Muslim League and Indian Congress, July 1940
>If food is scarce, why isn't Gandhi dead yet?
Churchill's witty retort to British Secretary of State for India Leo Amery's telegram for food stock to relieve the famine of Bengal in 1943 (4 million peopled starved to death.)
>Relief would do no good, Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply
And to those who say that Churchill was just a "product of his time"(same logic could be applied to hitler)
>On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane... I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's -Leo Amery, British Secretary of State for India
He even knew he would be vindicated by history and that his atrocious actions would try to be swept under the rug.
>"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"
| 1,485,309,162 | jamkid23 | dcvbgtb | dcvaidk | 10 | 6 |
CMV: I don't believe if I have feelings for someone I have a right to stop my friends from pursuing them
I don't believe that just because I have feelings for someone, or even if I dated someone, that I can reasonably ask my friends not to pursue them if there is a mutual attraction between them. Several of my friends who I have had this discussion with have expressed the opposite viewpoint and claim that it is morally unacceptable to pursue someone if they have feelings for that person.
I cannot justify in my own mind standing in the way of someone's happiness, particularly if they are my friend. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't hurt or cause me anxiety (it has), but those are issues I need to deal with rather then issuing an ultimatum to those involved.
I'm asking this community because I would like to see it from a different perspective and to see what I can learn by thinking about this from a pov different from my own.
Edit: Just to clarify I meant after dating, not currently dating. | It's not about what you have the right to demand from a friend in terms of behavior or actions. It's about your feelings toward someone else and your friend taking these feelings into account with his decision making.
Just as with any social interaction, the ultimate goal and thoughts are likely self centered, but we balance our own wants with the wants of others, especially people we care about. We say "I want this so I should do this, but it would make my friend sad if I did this, so should I do it?" The answer to the question isn't an easy one if you care about your friends feelings as well.
If you don't care, then by all means go right ahead, it's well within your rights to do so. This isn't really a hard rule as much as it is an extension of an expectation of friendship, that you care about your friends and their feelings and thus would avoid doing something that harms them. Is this unreasonable? I don't think so, personally, it's a rather basic tenant.
Now, you may be thinking, "But based on this logic: What if imposing this rule is being inconsiderate of my feelings and harming me or keeping me from happiness?" Well, that's why it's complex and often come with discussions. You can definitely submit the argument that "I liked her for longer than you did," or whatever relates to the scenario, in which case the rule would work in protection of your feelings or not at all in case its a zero sum game regardless.
The rule is never clean or clear, because someone is always sacrificing or giving something up, but the goal is for the person that wants it less to sacrifice since it would harm them less.
| Of course you have no moral obligation, but if your friend tells you they are interested in someone and you then pursue that same person, you are violating the trust of friendship.
If you do so after, again it's not immoral, but it is awkward as your friends will likely interact with your partner, and that partner may not be on good terms with your friend because of a breakup.
Further all of this adds strain to the relationship as the possibility of cheating increases. Knowing that your friend slept with your girlfriend at some point makes it more likely that that would happen again both because they are comfortable with each other and they obviously have sexual chemistry. | 5q0lny | CMV: I don't believe if I have feelings for someone I have a right to stop my friends from pursuing them | I don't believe that just because I have feelings for someone, or even if I dated someone, that I can reasonably ask my friends not to pursue them if there is a mutual attraction between them. Several of my friends who I have had this discussion with have expressed the opposite viewpoint and claim that it is morally unacceptable to pursue someone if they have feelings for that person.
I cannot justify in my own mind standing in the way of someone's happiness, particularly if they are my friend. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't hurt or cause me anxiety (it has), but those are issues I need to deal with rather then issuing an ultimatum to those involved.
I'm asking this community because I would like to see it from a different perspective and to see what I can learn by thinking about this from a pov different from my own.
Edit: Just to clarify I meant after dating, not currently dating. | 1,485,311,175 | mgm1271 | dcve1ll | dcvdzc0 | 6 | 1 |
CMV: In the Dark Knight, Batman's moral code is highly questionable. Therefore, I cannot see him as heroic.
There are many things Batman does which can be seen as heroic. He makes extreme sacrifices for the greater good. He invests an inordinate amount of time and money into a worthy cause: conquering crime in Gotham. However, he resorts to violence all too readily to be a hero. Yes, he has a moral code: thou shalt not kill. But when he will resort to any sort of violence to reach his ends sans killing, it's hard to call him moral, ethical, or compassionate (in my opinion, necessary criteria to be a hero). Need proof that violence is his answer? Well, I will point to the interrogation scene between him and the Joker. From the first moment Batman appears in this scene he is bashing the Joker's head into a table, seemingly a non-violent method never having entered his brain, and his fight with the Joker could not possibly be seen as honourable, as his opponent is handcuffed and was completely taken by surprise. And then, despite it being obvious that this interrogation method was not phasing the Joker one bit, Batman continues with the beating.
Violence can be necessary to combat evil, but Batman does not do this when necessary, he does it by default.
I can't get behind such a hypocritical character—a character that is so hung up on not killing others, and yet will readily beat any opponent to a pulp without remorse. | Thats the point of the ending monologue, and overall the movie:
> Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. **Because he's not our hero.** He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.
What gotham "needs" is a real hero, an incorruptible, white knight Harvey Dent. What it *deserves* however is a psychopath in a bat costume bringing it to heel.
Although Batman is fighting for what is right, he's not going about it a socially acceptable way and so he can't explicitly be condoned as a hero. He has to hand that title over to the (fictionalised) Harvey Dent.
The uncomfortable brutality of the interrogation scene is again deliberate. Its an enactment of the "ticking time bomb" scenario thats often used to justify torture (with a literal ticking time bomb). Batman tries to beat answers out of the joker and it fails totally, and even comes across as something of a victory for the Joker that it came to this level.
| >From the first moment Batman appears in this scene he is bashing the Joker's head into a table, seemingly a non-violent method never having entered his brain
At this point in the movie the Joker has robbed a bank and indirectly or directly killed over a dozen people including the police commissioner and a judge, and just had corrupt police officers kidnap both the district attorney and assistant district attorney and has not responded to any of the police's questioning. How were the police suppose to handle this situation without Batman? What's the non violent solution to this? The Joker is constantly raising the stakes throughout this movie to get Batman to break his code but he maintains it despite being tested and that's heroic. He keeps fighting for whats right even when everyone else is too afraid to. He acts completely selflessly by choosing to save Dent instead of his girl friend. He even goes so far as to take the blame for Dent's crimes if there's any chance it will improve the city. Also he funds orphanages so he's clearly a pretty nice guy.
| 5q19kw | CMV: In the Dark Knight, Batman's moral code is highly questionable. Therefore, I cannot see him as heroic. | There are many things Batman does which can be seen as heroic. He makes extreme sacrifices for the greater good. He invests an inordinate amount of time and money into a worthy cause: conquering crime in Gotham. However, he resorts to violence all too readily to be a hero. Yes, he has a moral code: thou shalt not kill. But when he will resort to any sort of violence to reach his ends sans killing, it's hard to call him moral, ethical, or compassionate (in my opinion, necessary criteria to be a hero). Need proof that violence is his answer? Well, I will point to the interrogation scene between him and the Joker. From the first moment Batman appears in this scene he is bashing the Joker's head into a table, seemingly a non-violent method never having entered his brain, and his fight with the Joker could not possibly be seen as honourable, as his opponent is handcuffed and was completely taken by surprise. And then, despite it being obvious that this interrogation method was not phasing the Joker one bit, Batman continues with the beating.
Violence can be necessary to combat evil, but Batman does not do this when necessary, he does it by default.
I can't get behind such a hypocritical character—a character that is so hung up on not killing others, and yet will readily beat any opponent to a pulp without remorse. | 1,485,319,367 | herpaderpaskerpa | dcvsprg | dcvqkhj | 14 | 2 |
CMV: It's highly likely that voting machines were tampered with by Russia in the 2016 election
We know that Russia was extremely interested in helping Donald Trump win the election. They hacked the DNC, gave money to Paul Manafort, and ran propaganda aimed at denigrating Clinton. It only seems logical to me that they would also try to physically tamper with the vote counting process or with voting machines themselves.
We also know that all the major polls were wildly incorrect in their both their exit polling and prediction polling, to a degree that is essentially unprecedented. I see lots of hypotheses grasping at things like people being embarrassed to admit they voted for Donald Trump, but I have yet to see a solid, well-researched explanation for it.
The actual mechanism for pulling it off does not sound entirely implausible to me. First off, only a few voting machines in key polling places in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida would need to be affected to completely swing the election. It seems entirely possible that a Russian agent could go into a polling booth, install the tampering device, and later another agent could go pick it up to remove the evidence. We've seen how quickly and easily hard-to-detect credit card swipers can be installed. And we know it can be done with [voting machines, too](http://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-watch-video-cylance/).
Now I researched this before posting, and the one thing that keeps me from fully believing this is that most of the experts seemingly flat-out dismiss the idea that voting could have tampered with. But, in my opinion, they are focusing on moot points in their arguments:
* Some say that the voting system is too widespread and varied. This doesn't really matter, though. You would only need to compromise a few machines in key states to completely swing the election.
* Some of them only seem to entertain the idea of a cyber attack via the internet. I don't think this is the vector that would be used. It seems far more likely that it would be actual physical tampering or perhaps paid-off or blackmailed election officials.
* Obama and many democrats also flat-out dismiss the idea. But they have good motive to: At best they would sound like "sore losers", and at worst they would cause chaos and riots.
* The oft-repeated argument is that there's "no evidence, and anyone making these allegations should bring forth evidence." Normally I'd agree with this; however the only people that would really have the power to collect evidence would be our intelligence agencies. And even they may be hesitant to reveal actual election fraud, for the reason in the previous bullet point.
So go ahead, CMV. I know I'll get a lot of "butthurt loser" replies, which admittedly, I am. But to me, something definitely smells fishy here.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | >We also know that all the major polls were wildly incorrect in their both their exit polling and prediction polling, to a degree that is essentially unprecedented.
No, they weren't. It's easy to forget that Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2.1%. Over the last 12 elections, the national polling average has been off by an average of 2 percentage points (with a high of ~7% in 1980). This year, the national polling average was off by 1.1 to 1.8 percent, depending on which polls you include in your average. Even if you consider "swing state" polls only, they missed by 2.7% on average, which still isn't particularly high. | It's actually very unlikely for the following reasons:
Everything you've described (some of it hasn't been proven) is either propaganda of some kind, intrusion to obtain information, or the corruption of an individual. In every case, Russia was/is either engaging in standard espionage or doing something that's generally expected and that doesn't interfere with the actual mechanics of the vote - neither of which carry catastrophic consequences. They may influence the way voters think, but they don't take anyone's vote away. As such, though what they did was an affront to the US, they can plausibly deny responsibility and we can't point to any election law that was actually broken.
Interference in actual machines would more than likely be discovered, even if it couldn't be confirmed that Russia was responsible. That would probably result in a revote in the affected area, and it would be a wasted effort to interfere, be discovered, and lose the benefit of interfering in a more closely scrutinized vote. If it were discovered that Russia were responsible for that interference, that would be a legitimate *casus belli*. No country on Earth would protect Russia against an avalanche of sanctions that would only end when Putin left power and Russia groveled in front of the UN and US.
Simply put, the risk isn't worth the reward. A light touch leaves a smaller fingerprint. | 5q3odx | CMV: It's highly likely that voting machines were tampered with by Russia in the 2016 election | We know that Russia was extremely interested in helping Donald Trump win the election. They hacked the DNC, gave money to Paul Manafort, and ran propaganda aimed at denigrating Clinton. It only seems logical to me that they would also try to physically tamper with the vote counting process or with voting machines themselves.
We also know that all the major polls were wildly incorrect in their both their exit polling and prediction polling, to a degree that is essentially unprecedented. I see lots of hypotheses grasping at things like people being embarrassed to admit they voted for Donald Trump, but I have yet to see a solid, well-researched explanation for it.
The actual mechanism for pulling it off does not sound entirely implausible to me. First off, only a few voting machines in key polling places in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida would need to be affected to completely swing the election. It seems entirely possible that a Russian agent could go into a polling booth, install the tampering device, and later another agent could go pick it up to remove the evidence. We've seen how quickly and easily hard-to-detect credit card swipers can be installed. And we know it can be done with [voting machines, too](http://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-watch-video-cylance/).
Now I researched this before posting, and the one thing that keeps me from fully believing this is that most of the experts seemingly flat-out dismiss the idea that voting could have tampered with. But, in my opinion, they are focusing on moot points in their arguments:
* Some say that the voting system is too widespread and varied. This doesn't really matter, though. You would only need to compromise a few machines in key states to completely swing the election.
* Some of them only seem to entertain the idea of a cyber attack via the internet. I don't think this is the vector that would be used. It seems far more likely that it would be actual physical tampering or perhaps paid-off or blackmailed election officials.
* Obama and many democrats also flat-out dismiss the idea. But they have good motive to: At best they would sound like "sore losers", and at worst they would cause chaos and riots.
* The oft-repeated argument is that there's "no evidence, and anyone making these allegations should bring forth evidence." Normally I'd agree with this; however the only people that would really have the power to collect evidence would be our intelligence agencies. And even they may be hesitant to reveal actual election fraud, for the reason in the previous bullet point.
So go ahead, CMV. I know I'll get a lot of "butthurt loser" replies, which admittedly, I am. But to me, something definitely smells fishy here.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | 1,485,357,081 | KimonoThief | dcw2fph | dcw0ma6 | 8 | 2 |
CMV: The U.S. spends too much on foreign assistance; this may feel compassionate but could be better spent domestically or on defense
To get it out of the way, I understand that the foreign assistance budget is a small proportion of the total U.S. budget and is dwarfed by our military budget. At [$23 billion](https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending) it's less than 4 percent the amount we [spend on defense](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal) and well under 1 percent of the [total budget](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-white-house-fiscal-2017-budget-proposal/1953/).
That said, it's still in the tens of billions of dollars. While I understand that it's important to be compassionate and that giving this money away allows us to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing, I don't believe that we get limited tangible benefits from it.
In an age when we have veterans who require care and there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who wish to do us harm and who we have to defend against, I can think of many other, better functions for this money
Please change my view
**EDIT:** Thank you to everyone and to u/electronics12345 and u/McKoijion in particular. To me, the best arguments tied foreign assistance with a cost we wouldn't have to incur elsewhere.
For example, providing money to organizations in W. African nations to fight Ebola means they can contain it and we don't have to fight Ebola here. Providing money to middle eastern nations means they can effectively do what U.S. service members on U.S. bases in the region would do.
In each of these cases, because of many reasons including that we're assisting and not doing the whole thing ourselves, the cost can be much cheaper.
**EDIT2:** It's important to also mention u/fstd who suggested that the premise upon which my argument was based is flawed. A big chunk of foreign assistance goes to security -- not just humanitarian aid.
Thanks again and have a good evening.
| Take a look at what its spent on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/26/the-u-s-foreign-aid-budget-visualized/?utm_term=.c8fe0ba1e26c
You seem to think it's all spent on humanitarian aid when it could be used to improve the US's security situation, but a good chunk of it is spent on security and the biggest single beneficiary is Israel, and all of that is in the form of defence spending. Israel being a longtime US ally in an unstable reason, this is obviously done in the interest of US security. Indeed more is spent on military aid to Israel and Egypt than to the 6 biggest recipients of humanitarian aid in Africa.
Even some of that humanitarian spending improves security. The amount that is spent rebuilding Afghanistan after the war, for example; when you go in, destroy a country and tear down it's institutions, you can't just leave and expect the people there will forget about you just as soon as you forget about them. The situation in Afghanistan remains less than ideal. Money needs to be spent on both military and humanitarian aid or you'll never have stability in the region.
In short:
> generally speaking, the money is intended to ensure American strategic interests abroad and bolster international institutions that respond to humanitarian crises, climate change, infectious diseases and a plethora of other development concerns.
Strategic American interests abroad is the key word here; the US State department is not a charity. They don't do things to feel good or improve their moral standing (anything they achieve on that front is quickly wiped out by the CIA so it doesn't really matter). They seek some sort of self serving benefit abroad from the money they spend. Note, for example, that outside of security spending, things like bolstering international response to climate change, humanitarian disasters and infectious diseases makes things easier for the US as well. | The US already spends more on defense than any other country in the world, almost as much as every other country in the world put together.
I understand that America is exceptional but does it really need to spend more on defense than every other country and does it need to spend a little bit more than it already does?
Could it be that American defense spending is more inefficient than all the other countries in the world, and that's why the US needs to spend more, or could it be that American defense spending is spent badly, on the wrong things?
Similarly, I understand that US healthcare is the most expensive in the world, would that be a case for spending more on healthcare or by somehow making spending more efficient, getting better results for the money already spent.
Either way, its kind of irrelevant to your point, foreign assistence or aid spending isn't allows "[the US] to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing", it quite literally is diplomacy. It is quite literally to project to the rest of the world that the US way of life, the cultural norms you have, like democracy and the rule of law, are better than for example China or India or Russia.
In 'negotiation theory', there is the concept of 'currencies', which are things used in any negotiation that have low value to the giver and a higher value to the other party. So when you are negotiating anything you can give away things that look like concessions to the other party in order to get your way. This is what foreign assistance is.
Its only $23b to the US, a tiny fraction of the GDP, but to developing nations with other priorities and cash-flow problems and tiny GDP, that money goes a lot further. | 5q3wh6 | CMV: The U.S. spends too much on foreign assistance; this may feel compassionate but could be better spent domestically or on defense | To get it out of the way, I understand that the foreign assistance budget is a small proportion of the total U.S. budget and is dwarfed by our military budget. At [$23 billion](https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending) it's less than 4 percent the amount we [spend on defense](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal) and well under 1 percent of the [total budget](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-white-house-fiscal-2017-budget-proposal/1953/).
That said, it's still in the tens of billions of dollars. While I understand that it's important to be compassionate and that giving this money away allows us to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing, I don't believe that we get limited tangible benefits from it.
In an age when we have veterans who require care and there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who wish to do us harm and who we have to defend against, I can think of many other, better functions for this money
Please change my view
**EDIT:** Thank you to everyone and to u/electronics12345 and u/McKoijion in particular. To me, the best arguments tied foreign assistance with a cost we wouldn't have to incur elsewhere.
For example, providing money to organizations in W. African nations to fight Ebola means they can contain it and we don't have to fight Ebola here. Providing money to middle eastern nations means they can effectively do what U.S. service members on U.S. bases in the region would do.
In each of these cases, because of many reasons including that we're assisting and not doing the whole thing ourselves, the cost can be much cheaper.
**EDIT2:** It's important to also mention u/fstd who suggested that the premise upon which my argument was based is flawed. A big chunk of foreign assistance goes to security -- not just humanitarian aid.
Thanks again and have a good evening.
| 1,485,359,432 | bidibom2 | dcw4qag | dcw39av | 23 | 1 |
CMV: When it comes to musical encounters with the Devil, The Charlie Daniels Band "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is superior to Tenacious D's "Tribute."
There is a lot of music about people meeting the devil and striking bargains with them. There is [classical opera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_\(opera\)) about it, there are [blues legends](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson) about it, and there are other modern songs about it.
But, objectively, the pinnacle is clearly set by [the Charlie Daniels Band's song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi13NxmjqLI) It is more musically challenging to play, incorporates some more diverse musical styles and instruments, and is just more "fun" than any other song about meeting the devil.
When my friend attempted to argue the point that [Tenacious D's song "Tribute"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lK4cX5xGiQ) was a better song about encountering the devil, I was so baffled, so flabbergasted, so confused, I could not argue. I could only say, "let me think about that."
So here I am, having considered it, and I am hoping that someone perhaps could change my mind, or show me the error of my ways.
Help me, /r/changemyview , you're my only hope!
| Georgia was about a musical battle--and I'm not alone in actually preferring the Devil's entry over Johnny's. So the premise of the song is a bit unfulfilled.
Tribute is a song about a song. There is no contradiction within it. And beyond that, I prefer the D's composition, which is heavy on strong harmonic progression. Georgia is heavier on melody, which I find less interesting.
Obviously this is all subjective, but my goal is only to convince you that it is *reasonable* for someone to prefer Tribute, even if you personally don't. | There are tons of songs about encounters with the Devil. My personal pick is [Conversation with the Devil](https://youtu.be/8qX5TSmTyHc) by Ray Wylie Hubbard. It's deeper and more thoughtful than either of the songs you mentioned. The singer learns and grows as a person during the song. The primary advantage that The Devil Went Down to Georgia has is the technical aspects, but as a story, it's pretty simple and no one grows or learns.
It really comes down to what you value in a song. I value the story and the songwriting. If you prefer the technical aspects and the energy, then you'll disagree. | 5qbpqu | CMV: When it comes to musical encounters with the Devil, The Charlie Daniels Band "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is superior to Tenacious D's "Tribute." | There is a lot of music about people meeting the devil and striking bargains with them. There is [classical opera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_\(opera\)) about it, there are [blues legends](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson) about it, and there are other modern songs about it.
But, objectively, the pinnacle is clearly set by [the Charlie Daniels Band's song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi13NxmjqLI) It is more musically challenging to play, incorporates some more diverse musical styles and instruments, and is just more "fun" than any other song about meeting the devil.
When my friend attempted to argue the point that [Tenacious D's song "Tribute"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lK4cX5xGiQ) was a better song about encountering the devil, I was so baffled, so flabbergasted, so confused, I could not argue. I could only say, "let me think about that."
So here I am, having considered it, and I am hoping that someone perhaps could change my mind, or show me the error of my ways.
Help me, /r/changemyview , you're my only hope!
| 1,485,453,921 | Doc_Marlowe | dcy0z2o | dcy00zx | 19 | 3 |
CMV: People put too much emphasis on art and artists.
I am posting this considering the events in Brazil, especially São Paulo's new mayor, João Dória. He is currently promoting a policy to remove graffiti from the city. This includes both [pichação](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picha%C3%A7%C3%A3o) (tagging) and murals "street art." If requested I can post a few links to put this into context. But in short, the Brazilian left considers it absurd to remove these expressions, and defends, even in an economic crisis, to invest in art and culture.
I saw how the opposition reacted to Dória's actions and don't understand why it is such a big deal. I see art as a means of decoration, nothing else. Artists are not qualified to make political statements, just as a mathematician isn't. We shouldn't listen to what they say. Still, people put a huge emphasis in art as a political movement. Examples being the literature during the Estado Novo ([Dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_Era) in Brazil from 1937-1945) and the [military regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_military_government), which are taught in history and literature classes with extreme political bias, as if a poet's opinion mattered at all.
Governments spend millions curating art galleries instead of, for instance, using that money to stimulate science museums, which actually have a purpose: to stimulate scientific interest and get more people into academia and consequently, economic growth, as countries with cutting-edge technologies tend to exhibit greatest growth and improvement in quality of life. Or investing in schools, trade schools, maybe even welfare programs (just throwing around things. No need to argue where else to spend that money).
Another thing that prompted me to write this post was Meryl Streep's feud with Trump. While I agree with most of what she said: I don't like the POTUS in that I disagree with his beliefs, she is an artist, not a journalist or political commentator and has no place using her (in my opinion unfittingly\*) prominent position discussing politics, as she is not qualified to make a judgement.
\*Not because I consider her overrated, she really is one of the best actresses alive, but because art and artists are given too much space and shouldn't be given such a voice to talk about anything not related to their trade.
One last thing that really makes me confused is how much meaning people who study art give to paintings. I distinctly remember taking a literature exam in school in which one of Mondrian's compositions, something like [this](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-quu7j_xyf4o/U2hKHNZXY9I/AAAAAAAAFcw/iED4k66rgek/s1600/mondrianA.png), appeared and we were asked to interpret it. The only acceptable answer was that the straight lines and use of primary colours represented the growing urbanization and was a criticism to how things were becoming stale and unimaginative. Honestly, that is a huge stretch, all I saw was squares, but people who "understand" art will talk down at you as if it was such an obvious thing and us uninformed commoners were stupid. Not only that, but from what we were told by those same people is that art is subjective, and thus, its meaning depends on the reader/person looking at the piece, but only their interpretation is valid. "Art Historians" and poets have increasingly complex interpretations that often times the author disagrees with, to which they reply the work doesn't belong to the author, but to the people and that what (s)he meant by it is irrelevant, because they (the historians) know better. They, to quote the Simpsons, "embiggen" the role of art in the construction of society by attributing it a meaning it doesn't have.
Often times, the writing of these intellectuals is purposely convoluted, full of run on sentences designed specifically to confuse the reader and grant them an air of grandeur. (I'm not a native speaker, the expression "air of ... " exists, right? If not I mean it is supposed to make them look smart. Most texts from art and literature books read like posts in /r/iamverysmart).
To change my view, the following points could be argued, though not necessarily all of them:
* I am wrong in assuming there is such an emphasis in art and am, in fact, suffering from confirmation bias.
* Artists are in fact qualified to make political statements and their opinions should be worth more than the average person's as they are intellectuals. I disagree that all artists are intellectuals (some obviously are, and while they chose to do art, they are qualified by their other activities), so to change this part of the view first this would have to be addressed.
* Art and culture is an important investment governments should make and Brazil's budget in 2014 of R$1.8 billion\*\*\* (US$677 million at the time) is justified (assuming the resources were properly allocated into developing and stimulating art and nothing was lost to corruption, an unlikely scenario, but easier to deal with). This could be argued that it provides a greater return to the country in the form of economic growth (following Keynesian economics), or that art is actually so important for society in general that it is justified spending this much on it. \*\*
* Art Historians and other intellectuals aren't being pretentious by giving such specific and seemingly far-fetched meanings to paintings and there is actually a method (something scientific or close to it), as to me art is for decoration since the general population isn't can't decipher the full content of what is being put out. A way to change this portion is to show me how they come to such conclusions (no need to ELI5, some pointers on how it's done and to show that someone who didn't study this could follow and come to similar conclusions if following the same data).
\*\*Please don't argue with "Brazil spent over R$4bi on stadia for the world cup" and similar things. That is simply another example of badly allocated funds, not an argument for using more on art.
\*\*\*For comparison, the budget in the same year for the ministry of energy and mines was about R$1.4 billion. Meaning we spent more on theatres, museums, musicians etc. than we did on research of national natural resources. I will try to find a figure of that budget in relation to total government spending, if I do, I will put it here.
_____
If there is any part of this post that isn't clear please tell me and I'll do my best to fix it. Thank you all.
_____
Edit: Thank you all for the discussion. It really was great. Sorry that I couldn't respond to everything and everyone. I tried to reply mainly to the people posing new arguments to avoid becoming repetitive (so many people talking about actors), but it takes time to write this much, but I promise I read it all. I have other things to do now (5 hours is a whole lot of procrastinatin'), but I'll keep reading the thread.
| The thing about art is that it reflects its context. Art has to be *about* something. While sometimes art is just for aesthetic--and that's totally valid--sometimes art is created to send a message in a unique way. That message doesn't have to be political, but there's no reason it can't be. I'll try to address some of your points:
>Artists are in fact qualified to make political statements and their opinions should be worth more than the average person's as they are intellectuals. I disagree that all artists are intellectuals (some obviously are, and while they chose to do art, they are qualified by their other activities), so to change this part of the view first this would have to be addressed.
First, I don't think people have to be "qualified" to make political statements. The nature of democracy is that everyone gets an opinion. You can discount someone's opinion on the basis that they don't know what they're talking about, but that doesn't mean no one who's not a professional knows what they're talking about. Artists don't have deep political insights just by virtue of being artists, but some artists do have deep political insights just like anyone else can. You shouldn't *necessarily* value an artist's opinion over the average person's, but just like you might value your Uncle Bill's opinions because they are convincing and well-articulated, you might value a *particular* artist's opinion because it is convincing and presented in a powerful way. An image like [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/06/65/3b/06653b8c77349f9fafccf3994eb86730.jpg) expresses an entire argument in a compact and straightforward way.
>Art and culture is an important investment governments should make and Brazil's budget in 2014 of R$1.8 billion*** (US$677 million at the time) is justified (assuming the resources were properly allocated into developing and stimulating art and nothing was lost to corruption, an unlikely scenario, but easier to deal with). This could be argued that it provides a greater return to the country in the form of economic growth (following Keynesian economics), or that art is actually so important for society in general that it is justified spending this much on it.
Art is one of those things that is important for quality of life. Like professional sports allow us a community and a healthy outlet for tribalism, art allows us to express ourselves and to see the world in new ways. Art is an arena where it's safer to be radical, safer to express ideas outside the norm. This is important for our progress as a society. It's important for our ability to self-reflect. When *Hamilton* casts all actors of color to play our [cherished founding fathers](http://static2.hypable.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Hamilton-cast.jpg) as they fight a revolution, it shoves in our faces the double standard when it comes to people of color protesting. A song like [Born in the U.S.A.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZD4ezDbbu4) forces us to reflect on our military and our treatment of veterans. Hell, even X-Men makes us think about how we coexist despite our differences. We can do this without art, of course, but art provides a palatable and powerful context. How are we supposed to improve if we can't look clearly at where we are? A flourishing artistic community goes hand in hand with the ability to progress as a society.
Edit: Also, your literature teacher was a pretentious ass. Art is meant to be interpreted, and just because it has great meaning to one person doesn't mean it has to have great meaning to you. Unfortunately, there are pretentious asses in every arena. Ignore them. |
First off, I think you are dismissing the importance of subjectivity (i.e. emotion and feeling) to politics and society in general. Of course, the basis of modern civilization is that individuals can be expected to act rationally in their own best interests – this is why individuals are able to agree on laws that restrict their own freedom, but ultimately promote the well-being of the whole. But if every individual was capable of making decisions rationally, how could there ever be any disagreement on anything? If rationality is universal, why is there never any universal consensus is politics?
The obvious answer is that society is not made up of rationally calculating robotic individuals, but human individuals whose rationality is constantly being informed (often subconsciously) by the irrationality of their feelings and emotions. **Art is what puts us in touch with the irrational side of our inner being, and art functions to move us closer to a consensus based upon an understanding of that irrationality.** And you can see that failure to foster an emotional consensus in our politics today – I don’t think I need to explain to you the current “alternative facts” discourse and the way that rational arguments fell flat during the Trump-Clinton election cycle.
Understanding our feelings and emotions is just as complicated as any science. Even if there is ultimately no objective truth that arises from the exploration, there is still a clear difference between expressions of subjectivity that reflect the nuances of the human experience, and oversimplifications that fail to inform us of anything new or meaningful. Just like how a scientific study can be more or less meaningful based upon how many variables are considered and controlled, art can be more or less meaningful based upon how much complexity it tries to represent or convey. Just like a bad scientist is one that chooses to ignore variables that may affect their hypothesis, a bad artist or art critic is one that *fails* to address the complexity of the subject. Good artists and critics really do put an intense level of thought into their work, not just to make you feel dumb for not immediately grasping their meaning, but because the subjects they are trying to represent *really are that complex*.
As far as art and policy goes, maybe you’re right that the money we spend to promote art could be better spent somewhere else – who knows? But I do think there is a danger when our society fails to promote or support fine art, as this leads to a loss of the cultural unity that would help us function better as a society. We lose the insight into anything other than our narrow individual perspective, and sometimes we even lose insight into ourselves and why we do the things we do.
| 5qbtxv | CMV: People put too much emphasis on art and artists. | I am posting this considering the events in Brazil, especially São Paulo's new mayor, João Dória. He is currently promoting a policy to remove graffiti from the city. This includes both [pichação](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picha%C3%A7%C3%A3o) (tagging) and murals "street art." If requested I can post a few links to put this into context. But in short, the Brazilian left considers it absurd to remove these expressions, and defends, even in an economic crisis, to invest in art and culture.
I saw how the opposition reacted to Dória's actions and don't understand why it is such a big deal. I see art as a means of decoration, nothing else. Artists are not qualified to make political statements, just as a mathematician isn't. We shouldn't listen to what they say. Still, people put a huge emphasis in art as a political movement. Examples being the literature during the Estado Novo ([Dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_Era) in Brazil from 1937-1945) and the [military regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_military_government), which are taught in history and literature classes with extreme political bias, as if a poet's opinion mattered at all.
Governments spend millions curating art galleries instead of, for instance, using that money to stimulate science museums, which actually have a purpose: to stimulate scientific interest and get more people into academia and consequently, economic growth, as countries with cutting-edge technologies tend to exhibit greatest growth and improvement in quality of life. Or investing in schools, trade schools, maybe even welfare programs (just throwing around things. No need to argue where else to spend that money).
Another thing that prompted me to write this post was Meryl Streep's feud with Trump. While I agree with most of what she said: I don't like the POTUS in that I disagree with his beliefs, she is an artist, not a journalist or political commentator and has no place using her (in my opinion unfittingly\*) prominent position discussing politics, as she is not qualified to make a judgement.
\*Not because I consider her overrated, she really is one of the best actresses alive, but because art and artists are given too much space and shouldn't be given such a voice to talk about anything not related to their trade.
One last thing that really makes me confused is how much meaning people who study art give to paintings. I distinctly remember taking a literature exam in school in which one of Mondrian's compositions, something like [this](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-quu7j_xyf4o/U2hKHNZXY9I/AAAAAAAAFcw/iED4k66rgek/s1600/mondrianA.png), appeared and we were asked to interpret it. The only acceptable answer was that the straight lines and use of primary colours represented the growing urbanization and was a criticism to how things were becoming stale and unimaginative. Honestly, that is a huge stretch, all I saw was squares, but people who "understand" art will talk down at you as if it was such an obvious thing and us uninformed commoners were stupid. Not only that, but from what we were told by those same people is that art is subjective, and thus, its meaning depends on the reader/person looking at the piece, but only their interpretation is valid. "Art Historians" and poets have increasingly complex interpretations that often times the author disagrees with, to which they reply the work doesn't belong to the author, but to the people and that what (s)he meant by it is irrelevant, because they (the historians) know better. They, to quote the Simpsons, "embiggen" the role of art in the construction of society by attributing it a meaning it doesn't have.
Often times, the writing of these intellectuals is purposely convoluted, full of run on sentences designed specifically to confuse the reader and grant them an air of grandeur. (I'm not a native speaker, the expression "air of ... " exists, right? If not I mean it is supposed to make them look smart. Most texts from art and literature books read like posts in /r/iamverysmart).
To change my view, the following points could be argued, though not necessarily all of them:
* I am wrong in assuming there is such an emphasis in art and am, in fact, suffering from confirmation bias.
* Artists are in fact qualified to make political statements and their opinions should be worth more than the average person's as they are intellectuals. I disagree that all artists are intellectuals (some obviously are, and while they chose to do art, they are qualified by their other activities), so to change this part of the view first this would have to be addressed.
* Art and culture is an important investment governments should make and Brazil's budget in 2014 of R$1.8 billion\*\*\* (US$677 million at the time) is justified (assuming the resources were properly allocated into developing and stimulating art and nothing was lost to corruption, an unlikely scenario, but easier to deal with). This could be argued that it provides a greater return to the country in the form of economic growth (following Keynesian economics), or that art is actually so important for society in general that it is justified spending this much on it. \*\*
* Art Historians and other intellectuals aren't being pretentious by giving such specific and seemingly far-fetched meanings to paintings and there is actually a method (something scientific or close to it), as to me art is for decoration since the general population isn't can't decipher the full content of what is being put out. A way to change this portion is to show me how they come to such conclusions (no need to ELI5, some pointers on how it's done and to show that someone who didn't study this could follow and come to similar conclusions if following the same data).
\*\*Please don't argue with "Brazil spent over R$4bi on stadia for the world cup" and similar things. That is simply another example of badly allocated funds, not an argument for using more on art.
\*\*\*For comparison, the budget in the same year for the ministry of energy and mines was about R$1.4 billion. Meaning we spent more on theatres, museums, musicians etc. than we did on research of national natural resources. I will try to find a figure of that budget in relation to total government spending, if I do, I will put it here.
_____
If there is any part of this post that isn't clear please tell me and I'll do my best to fix it. Thank you all.
_____
Edit: Thank you all for the discussion. It really was great. Sorry that I couldn't respond to everything and everyone. I tried to reply mainly to the people posing new arguments to avoid becoming repetitive (so many people talking about actors), but it takes time to write this much, but I promise I read it all. I have other things to do now (5 hours is a whole lot of procrastinatin'), but I'll keep reading the thread.
| 1,485,455,054 | PapaFedorasSnowden | dcy1yqd | dcy0yrx | 2 | 1 |
CMV: Being knowingly registered to vote in 2 states is troubling, and fraudulent under certain conditions; even if you only vote in one state
I understand people frequently move across state lines and register to vote in their new state. Honestly, I don't even know what the procedure is for "unregistering" (I always just assumed that the states talked to each other and you automatically got unregistered in one state when you registered in another). Hell, I *may* be registered in 2 states myself; although one of those registrations would be over 20 years old.
If a person is technically registered in two states, but doesn't realize it, I don't see where that creates any problems. When a person is registered in two states and is aware of that, it is troubling. When a person intentionally registers in two states with the intent of choosing where to vote come election day, that is fraudulent. **[Those three sentences are the view you should be trying to change]**
The problem is the electoral college. Let's consider a person who lives in Ohio near the Michigan/Ohio border and registers intentionally in both states. That person can only legally vote in Ohio. But say as election day nears, polls are showing that his candidate will likely win easily in Ohio, so he votes in Michigan where the race is neck-and-neck? But if the race was a run away in Michigan, and close in Ohio, he'd vote in Ohio. This is voter fraud because it is an intentional attempt to manipulate the vote by registering in two states.
Now if the person is *aware* of the dual registration, but didn't do it intentionally, it isn't fraud unless he votes in the incorrect state. But it is still troubling. And it is troubling because, as election day nears, he could be influenced on where to vote based upon polling expectations in both states. If these polls influence him to vote in the state he doesn't reside in, then it is straight-up fraud. But if the polls influence to vote where he is legally entitled to, it is still troubling (because had the polls been different, he may have voted elsewhere), but he hasn't done anything illegal or fraudulent. | I am often registered in more than one state. Let me give you some clear examples to help illustrate your ideas. You highlight this as your central point:
>If a person is technically registered in two states, but doesn't realize it, I don't see where that creates any problems. When a person is registered in two states and is aware of that, it is troubling. When a person intentionally registers in two states with the intent of choosing where to vote come election day, that is fraudulent.
But that's incorrect. Here's your real point:
>Now if the person is aware of the dual registration, but didn't do it intentionally, it isn't fraud unless he votes in the incorrect state.
So...what makes something the "correct" state? You do not clarify this.
**We can both agree that voting in two states is wrong**. So we'll just stipulate to that.
* In college, I was registered in both Iowa and Wisconsin. Why? I went to school in Iowa, my primary residence was in Wisconsin. I registered in Wisconsin when I came of age, and then again in Iowa because that's where I lived when elections came to a head. I was considered, for tax purposes, a resident of Wisconsin because I was a dependent of my mom. Yet I spent nine months of the year in Iowa. Which is the correct state?
If I vote in Iowa, I vote in the state where I actually live. I live there, I eat there, I work there. I am there far more often than I was ever in Wisconsin. I am also located there during the elections. Though I COULD register in Wisconsin, I'd be unable to vote there without driving several hours. At the same time, the money that primarily supported me came from Wisconsin. Yes, I worked in Iowa, but as a dependent more than half my support came from Wisconsin. So where do I vote in order to be in the "correct" state?
* In the last election, I lived in Colorado during the time where we had mail-in ballots. My husband and I voted in Colorado through the mail. Despite that, we were actually living back in Wisconsin (there are several years between these examples) during the election. Due to hang-ups regarding the move, I'd have been unable to provide the required documentation to get registered in Wisconsin, so we'd have been disenfranchised if we attempted to vote in the state we currently resided (aka Wisco). Ergo, we voted in a state we technically did not live in (yet own property in) for the 2016 election because of the timing of things. It was our only option.
Did we vote in the right state?
I have more examples, but I'll stop there.
**What makes something the correct state?** I have never figured that out. I lived in Colorado when I got my mail-in ballot, and even though I wasn't IN Colorado during the actual election, I own a house there. I could have voted in Wisconsin had I had something like an electric or gas bill in my name, but I didn't have that because I just moved and the paperwork wouldn't have come in time. Not to mention I hadn't had a chance to change my driver's license yet. I could have voted in Wisconsin during college, but the long drive would have made that tremendously impractical and I had a residency in Iowa so I was able to register there.
Now the crux of the issue: **Who the fuck cares?** I get your point that the electoral college can be manipulated. It would have been better for me to vote in Wisconsin where Trump won and not Colorado where Hillary won. But honestly, this doesn't change much. Singular votes, what people do on an individual level, changes very, very, very little in terms of an election. You have to have problems that get into the thousands before it matters. My vote in Wisconsin wouldn't have changed things. I honest to god think I'm probably registered in about five states at this moment. But I'm not paying to fly out to vote. No one is. We can barely get people to leave the living room to vote, let alone buy cross country plane tickets. Anyone who cares enough to pick their state should be able to do it, provided it isn't fraud. I was a resident of the state I voted in for every election. But I've been in the margins more than once. You know where I voted? Where I could. I was TECHNICALLY a Wisconsin resident for this election season, but I couldn't register because I hadn't gotten a fucking water bill in the mail. That's what it came down to. I'm not committing fraud, I am just voting where I can.
**Just fucking vote**: I don't care where you do it. Voting fraud is a myth. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I am just saying that its impact is so minimal that no one cares. | Not the original commenter but adding on- Because without a process that verifies address and registers you where you are currently living... it wouldn't be a pain in the ass? If it were as simple as driving across state lines to the nearest location and driving back again, rather than having a process to register you, then it would conceivably invite it as a more frequent strategy.
That said, if we want to really get into it voter fraud- at least when it comes to in person voter fraud with someone voting multiple times in multiple locations- its basically a trivial issue with the potential cases each election ranging in the high tens at most. If anything, your OP worrying about someone trying to "game the system" by putting their vote where it would matter more shows a deeper flaw in the system, in that you're eluding to the fact that every person's vote doesn't get counted equally. This is how we have a situation where a man can lose by 3 million votes, the largest margin of loss in the history of the country, and he's currently writing executive orders. Really, I want to ask how you're defining "fraud" here. In a state election, sure, crossing borders to influence another state's elections when you don't even live there would be fraudulent, particularly if you then went back and voted for your own state's representatives as well. However, you specifically mention the electoral college in your OP... in a federal election, where the opinions of the entire country are supposedly meant to be counted, why would the location you voted be considered fraudulent? Unless, as I said before, there is a deeper issue in the voting process itself undemocratically making some votes worth less than others. | 5qbx24 | CMV: Being knowingly registered to vote in 2 states is troubling, and fraudulent under certain conditions; even if you only vote in one state | I understand people frequently move across state lines and register to vote in their new state. Honestly, I don't even know what the procedure is for "unregistering" (I always just assumed that the states talked to each other and you automatically got unregistered in one state when you registered in another). Hell, I *may* be registered in 2 states myself; although one of those registrations would be over 20 years old.
If a person is technically registered in two states, but doesn't realize it, I don't see where that creates any problems. When a person is registered in two states and is aware of that, it is troubling. When a person intentionally registers in two states with the intent of choosing where to vote come election day, that is fraudulent. **[Those three sentences are the view you should be trying to change]**
The problem is the electoral college. Let's consider a person who lives in Ohio near the Michigan/Ohio border and registers intentionally in both states. That person can only legally vote in Ohio. But say as election day nears, polls are showing that his candidate will likely win easily in Ohio, so he votes in Michigan where the race is neck-and-neck? But if the race was a run away in Michigan, and close in Ohio, he'd vote in Ohio. This is voter fraud because it is an intentional attempt to manipulate the vote by registering in two states.
Now if the person is *aware* of the dual registration, but didn't do it intentionally, it isn't fraud unless he votes in the incorrect state. But it is still troubling. And it is troubling because, as election day nears, he could be influenced on where to vote based upon polling expectations in both states. If these polls influence him to vote in the state he doesn't reside in, then it is straight-up fraud. But if the polls influence to vote where he is legally entitled to, it is still troubling (because had the polls been different, he may have voted elsewhere), but he hasn't done anything illegal or fraudulent. | 1,485,455,897 | AlwaysABride | dcy6dhp | dcy3x8v | 5 | 2 |
CMV: Mexico will in some way or another, pay for the proposed wall.
Although they won't pay outright (now at least) for the wall they will pay for it through some shady economic relation changes between the two countries. There are several options I think the US might consider ranging from reasonable to clutching at straws.
- Increase import tax on Mexican produce.
- Cancel trade agreements
- Revoke the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Rio Grande. Claim prior appropriation and disrupt Mexico's water supply. Mexico would be unable to maintain agricultural practice resulting in less produce available for trading.
However America tackles it you can be sure that Mexico will make a loss to the tune of the wall's cost. On that note, Trump is looking pretty hardcore since he took office, I wouldn't be surprised if he went further out of spite.
In summary: Mexico will find themselves with a deficit the size of the cost of the wall.
Edit: I don't mean Mexico will literally shell out the cash for the wall, I'm saying that through some economic mechanisms Mexico will lose out on the cost of the wall and the US will probably be reimbursed for the wall's construction in some way or another.
Edit: I'm not suggesting I know the mechanisms the US would use only that there are options out there.
Edit: Not a Trump supporter.
Edit: Ok, for sake of argument say that they can't recoup the entire amount why does that mean the US couldn't possibly find mechanisms to recoup at least some of it. I might be misinterpreting comments but the general theme seems to be that not even the US government can come up with a mechanism to recoup some of the costs indirectly. I get that I'm not offering great examples but surely it's not far fetched to say the US government's economists can do what they do best.
Edit: [BBC article with some ideas on how they'd recoup the money](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269)
Edit: Ok, I'd like to rephrase my topic. "Mexico will in some way or another pay some of the money America spends on the wall".
EDIT: Seriously guys, I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even American.
Edit: I'm not saying I have faith in what Trump said, I have faith in the team of specialists charged with figuring it out. | This would only be under the assumption that the United States is the only player in town.
Mexico can and will likely shift trade and agreements to China and likely gain a strong ally in the east as a result. They have avoided it as a result of keeping the US happy.
There's already a political movement in Mexico to do this and as a result Mexico would lean more heavily socialist as it has headed in recent times. I believe their second largest political party already aligns itself as such (socialist, not China-leaning), and they didn't lose by much in 2012. We will see in 2018.
So will Mexico "pay" for the wall? No, don't be silly. The US will, and in the process it will alienate a long time trade partner. If NAFTA goes too, Mexico will attach to China and now instead of keeping your neighbors close-by, you've invited heavy Chinese influence next door to us.
And... imagine what Trump will do when China starts placing military bases in Mexico (hypothetical of course, but not unlikely)... Mexico becomes a very strategic land position for any competitive nation-state to have... and traditionally the US has been very secure with its neighbors since WW2 (People forget that the Nazi party started to influence Mexico, likely again for ground positioning against the US) partially for this reason, but this will likely change as Trump seeks an isolationist standpoint.
So Mexico will be bruised from this, but the US could crumble as a result of their largely isolationist stance. | Mexico taking a loss is not the same thing as Mexico paying for the wall.
Imagine the following scenario.
I want to build a fence between my house and my neighbor's house. I demand my neighbor pays for it. He refuses, so I pay for it myself, but then I go and vandalize his car for damages roughly equal to the cost of the fence. That's basically what Trump is proposing in many of these scenarios.
It doesn't add money to the US Treasury, and it doesn't change the fact that the US is still out the price of the wall. | 5qbyw7 | CMV: Mexico will in some way or another, pay for the proposed wall. | Although they won't pay outright (now at least) for the wall they will pay for it through some shady economic relation changes between the two countries. There are several options I think the US might consider ranging from reasonable to clutching at straws.
- Increase import tax on Mexican produce.
- Cancel trade agreements
- Revoke the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Rio Grande. Claim prior appropriation and disrupt Mexico's water supply. Mexico would be unable to maintain agricultural practice resulting in less produce available for trading.
However America tackles it you can be sure that Mexico will make a loss to the tune of the wall's cost. On that note, Trump is looking pretty hardcore since he took office, I wouldn't be surprised if he went further out of spite.
In summary: Mexico will find themselves with a deficit the size of the cost of the wall.
Edit: I don't mean Mexico will literally shell out the cash for the wall, I'm saying that through some economic mechanisms Mexico will lose out on the cost of the wall and the US will probably be reimbursed for the wall's construction in some way or another.
Edit: I'm not suggesting I know the mechanisms the US would use only that there are options out there.
Edit: Not a Trump supporter.
Edit: Ok, for sake of argument say that they can't recoup the entire amount why does that mean the US couldn't possibly find mechanisms to recoup at least some of it. I might be misinterpreting comments but the general theme seems to be that not even the US government can come up with a mechanism to recoup some of the costs indirectly. I get that I'm not offering great examples but surely it's not far fetched to say the US government's economists can do what they do best.
Edit: [BBC article with some ideas on how they'd recoup the money](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269)
Edit: Ok, I'd like to rephrase my topic. "Mexico will in some way or another pay some of the money America spends on the wall".
EDIT: Seriously guys, I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even American.
Edit: I'm not saying I have faith in what Trump said, I have faith in the team of specialists charged with figuring it out. | 1,485,456,397 | combobmoc | dcxzza4 | dcxzbzw | 17 | 11 |
CMV: Heavily restricting meat from your diet or completely getting rid of meat within your diet is healthier than including it.
I have a couple of reasons for this view and will lay them out for you now.
Number 1: I am a vegan and have been for a little over a year now. The common problems I hear about when people try going vegan I have encountered and conquered. Things like feeling weak, feeling tired, and always being hungry. I was able to conquer these common problems by learning how to properly manage my diet. (taking the right vitamins and learning how to get enough protein, vitamins, etc.) Basically these problems can easily be solved by doing veganism/vegetarianism properly.
Number 2: Everything in moderation right? This is a common rule that is often forgotten when talking about the consumption of meat (at least in America). I bring this up to present my argument of: If an overabundance of meat in our diet causes things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cancer; while an overabundance of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts cause no harm at all, how can one argue that we are supposed to eat meat as humans?
Number 3: The whole eating cooked meat allowed our ancestor's brains to evolve. This is a common rebuttal to an anti-meat diet and here is my counter. Meat back then was nearly the only highly nutritious food item on the menu. Yes, there were berries and nuts around but as we know today, just using those items to obtain the essential vitamins and such is hard (not impossible). Hence the reason we take supplements. So eating meat let our brain's evolve because of the nutrients within the meat itself, which the animal got from the fruits, vegetables, and grains it itself was eating. If agriculture came before cooked meat and the humans of that time learned to farm the correct crops I believe our brains would have still gotten enough nutrients to evolve. And kind of off topic. This fact has no weight in arguing that because it helped us progress in history that it is necessary now. That is akin to saying because slavery was crucial to the evolution of America (if you don't think it was, you obviously don't know your American History) that we still need it now. If you're not a bigot you can see the problem with that way of thinking. Eating meat is literally not necessary to live a healthy life, let alone survive.
Number 4: Continuing on from number 3. The meat from back then and the meat now are completely different. The meat now (talking about factory farms) is no where near as lean or clean as the meat from back then. I'm sure you know of the steroids and chemicals they pump into factory farmed animals in these times. (not specific chemicals but you have knowledge of the act)
Number 5: Living a healthy and happy life is easily achievable without meat as long as you are willing to learn how to do it. Examples are every longterm healthy vegan or vegetarian out there.
Now my reason for posting this is because I really want my view to be changed. I want to understand how people can say a diet that consists of mostly meat (like the average American's diet) is healthier than a vegan/vegetarian/restrictive diet. | If you gorge yourself on fruits continuously you will be at greatly increased risk for pancreatic cancer and Type 2 Diabetes. It depends on the vegetable but many vegetables contain vitamins and minerals that are toxic at high levels. | >But a lot of meat causes problems. Does it not?
Define "a lot". And ideally what kind of meat. Red meat tends to be worse than white meat. A person can get a large chunk of their calories from meat without any issues. | 5qck2c | CMV: Heavily restricting meat from your diet or completely getting rid of meat within your diet is healthier than including it. | I have a couple of reasons for this view and will lay them out for you now.
Number 1: I am a vegan and have been for a little over a year now. The common problems I hear about when people try going vegan I have encountered and conquered. Things like feeling weak, feeling tired, and always being hungry. I was able to conquer these common problems by learning how to properly manage my diet. (taking the right vitamins and learning how to get enough protein, vitamins, etc.) Basically these problems can easily be solved by doing veganism/vegetarianism properly.
Number 2: Everything in moderation right? This is a common rule that is often forgotten when talking about the consumption of meat (at least in America). I bring this up to present my argument of: If an overabundance of meat in our diet causes things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cancer; while an overabundance of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts cause no harm at all, how can one argue that we are supposed to eat meat as humans?
Number 3: The whole eating cooked meat allowed our ancestor's brains to evolve. This is a common rebuttal to an anti-meat diet and here is my counter. Meat back then was nearly the only highly nutritious food item on the menu. Yes, there were berries and nuts around but as we know today, just using those items to obtain the essential vitamins and such is hard (not impossible). Hence the reason we take supplements. So eating meat let our brain's evolve because of the nutrients within the meat itself, which the animal got from the fruits, vegetables, and grains it itself was eating. If agriculture came before cooked meat and the humans of that time learned to farm the correct crops I believe our brains would have still gotten enough nutrients to evolve. And kind of off topic. This fact has no weight in arguing that because it helped us progress in history that it is necessary now. That is akin to saying because slavery was crucial to the evolution of America (if you don't think it was, you obviously don't know your American History) that we still need it now. If you're not a bigot you can see the problem with that way of thinking. Eating meat is literally not necessary to live a healthy life, let alone survive.
Number 4: Continuing on from number 3. The meat from back then and the meat now are completely different. The meat now (talking about factory farms) is no where near as lean or clean as the meat from back then. I'm sure you know of the steroids and chemicals they pump into factory farmed animals in these times. (not specific chemicals but you have knowledge of the act)
Number 5: Living a healthy and happy life is easily achievable without meat as long as you are willing to learn how to do it. Examples are every longterm healthy vegan or vegetarian out there.
Now my reason for posting this is because I really want my view to be changed. I want to understand how people can say a diet that consists of mostly meat (like the average American's diet) is healthier than a vegan/vegetarian/restrictive diet. | 1,485,462,055 | relljr | dcy6nnb | dcy6fpz | 7 | 3 |
CMV: White Privilege should be renamed to encourage the social rise of minorities rather than the condemnation of white people.
One major issue I have found in modern sociology is the semantics behind the term "White Privilege". As a white person I am able to identify many "privileges" I have but I am unable to discern the differences between them and common courtesies that all humans should receive.
Examples such as: Avoiding searches by authorities based on my race, not being assumed to be a criminal/terrorist, not being questioned if I am in a position of authority.
Because of these things I see "White Privilege" as not really privilege, but just the right to be judged on your own individual merits. I don't walk outside and receive a check, or land a sick job just because I am white. I just don't have to fight against negative assumptions the second I engage in a variety of situations
For these reasons I find "White Privilege" as an insult to me. When I hear it, regardless of my understanding of it, I feel like someone is telling me that I am not being judged for my merits, and that I REALLY didn't deserve the positions I am in regardless of all of my hard work.
I think a term focused less on how white people are so "ahead" and more on how minorities are "behind" would be much more fitting, and would bring a lot more people on board to support reasonable social change. I can't think of a good term right now but something such as "Minority Social Deficit" would work. It doesn't sound nice, but I think it gets the point across without alienating white people.
Areas where I think I could receive good criticism:
If you can convince me that there isn't a way to bring everyone to an even playing field besides bringing white people down, then a that point I would be fine with using the term privilege. I need to be convinced that white people are in a position that is beyond what every person can have at the same time.
Yes, by being what I consider should be the "standard" I do have an edge over others, but if the gap was equalized I do not think I would lose anything substantial. Maybe I wouldn't get a job because a minority who would have lost it due to their race was actually better than me? I don't think that relative decrease in my social position is substantial at the moment.
| "Privilege" is not a complicated or arcane word.
Ordinary people understand all the time what "It's been a privilege playing with you", or "I had the privilege to see the Grang Canyon" mean. It means advantage, benefit, favor, luck.
"There are advatages to being white", or "society favors white people", are incredibly basic, straightforward, unavoidable statements if you want to discuss racial justice, and so is "white privilege", which is their obvious intuitive synonym based on it's etymology. If you feel attacked in your identity even by these childishly simple statements, then **you are not an ally** to racial justice progressivism.
Imagine this dialogue:
- **Alice**: I don't see why so many teenage girls get knocked up, I was always responsible and used contraceptives.
- **Bob**: Yeah, but you had the privilege of having a well-designed sex-ed class since grade school, and having two educated, and attentive parents to teach about safety. Many others didn't, especially in poor rural areas.
- **Alice**: "Privilege?" I feel so insulted by word! Are you saying that my lifestyle needs to be torn down, or that I didn't deserve it? Reword it this instant, if you expect to convince me! Talk about how those other girls were disadvantaged, instead of how I was advantaged. That would be a totally different claim, and it would make me support any sex-ed policy reform, which I feel attacked by right now.
Does this really sound like an open-minded person to you, who had a reasonable cause to feel attacked, or more like someone who was looking for a reason to be offended by mostly straightforward words not having a 100% coddling approach to he ego? | >It can be just as effective to label the group requiring rights, as it is to label the majority would may require more introspection.
It can be, which is why we do that too. We have multiple ways that we speak about these issues and white privilege is just one of the ones in our arsenal.
The term and the idea of checking one's privilege or having privilege came about because there was a need for it, because just labeling minorities as disadvantaged wasn't getting people within the spaces of civil rights to do the necessary reflection about how they were using their voices and their actions. It's really easy to feel sympathy for someone else's plight without ever having to combat the ways that I may be inadvertently attributing to it. White privilege is a term that is, ideally, supposed to promote that reflection and allow me to move forward in a way that appreciates how my voice may be louder and my actions taken differently because of the color of my skin, so that I don't accidentally or inadvertently silence someone of color. Just talking about their disadvantage of not being listened to as much makes me think 'oh that's terrible people should listen better' not about how I might actually be a part of that problem because of the system that's in place.
In the same way, that yes, we do talk about the disabled community and disability rights but we've also started to talk about able-body privilege and how it's appropriate to exist as an able bodied person within the context of a disabilities right movement. | 5qdqf4 | CMV: White Privilege should be renamed to encourage the social rise of minorities rather than the condemnation of white people. | One major issue I have found in modern sociology is the semantics behind the term "White Privilege". As a white person I am able to identify many "privileges" I have but I am unable to discern the differences between them and common courtesies that all humans should receive.
Examples such as: Avoiding searches by authorities based on my race, not being assumed to be a criminal/terrorist, not being questioned if I am in a position of authority.
Because of these things I see "White Privilege" as not really privilege, but just the right to be judged on your own individual merits. I don't walk outside and receive a check, or land a sick job just because I am white. I just don't have to fight against negative assumptions the second I engage in a variety of situations
For these reasons I find "White Privilege" as an insult to me. When I hear it, regardless of my understanding of it, I feel like someone is telling me that I am not being judged for my merits, and that I REALLY didn't deserve the positions I am in regardless of all of my hard work.
I think a term focused less on how white people are so "ahead" and more on how minorities are "behind" would be much more fitting, and would bring a lot more people on board to support reasonable social change. I can't think of a good term right now but something such as "Minority Social Deficit" would work. It doesn't sound nice, but I think it gets the point across without alienating white people.
Areas where I think I could receive good criticism:
If you can convince me that there isn't a way to bring everyone to an even playing field besides bringing white people down, then a that point I would be fine with using the term privilege. I need to be convinced that white people are in a position that is beyond what every person can have at the same time.
Yes, by being what I consider should be the "standard" I do have an edge over others, but if the gap was equalized I do not think I would lose anything substantial. Maybe I wouldn't get a job because a minority who would have lost it due to their race was actually better than me? I don't think that relative decrease in my social position is substantial at the moment.
| 1,485,473,924 | FluffyN00dles | dcyqgqv | dcyoars | 98 | 3 |
CMV: Trump is mentally ill
Change my view please. I think Trump could be clinically diagnosed as mentally ill from his public words and actions. I would say he has narcissistic personality disorder or another PD.
He has shown that he lacks empathy and consistently behaves in unethical ways and that benefit him personally.
He is extremely insecure about his appearance (tiny hands) and about his perception of having wealth and success (when facts show a significant portion of his business ventures have been unsuccessful).
He has exaggerated feelings of self importance the way he talks about himself in speeches and on twitter (example he has said he knows more than the CIA and military generals which is verifiably false).
He has a history of taking advantage of people (not paying contractors for services rendered) and lying about it.
Pompous and arrogant talking over people in debates and the whole "grab her by the pussy" debacle.
Also most troubling he is a pathological liar saying things and then flat out denying having said it even when presented with video or audio proof.
I should have spent more time finding quotes and references but all of this can be verified from his tweets, speeches, and videos. | Millions of people voted for Trump. It's unlikely that those millions of people are mentally ill. It is far more likely that many people with life experiences far different from your own saw merit in some of his positions. That doesn't mean these people are 'right', but it does mean we will all be better off understanding why they made that choice instead of writing them off as stupid or mentally ill.
Beliefs that strongly differ from our own often encourages us to view those beliefs as fundamentally flawed, or even monstrous. A reoccurring theme in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast (new episode posted today!) are generals who advocate for total, all out, violent war, where innocent civilians are slaughtered at will. At first glance this appears demonstrably...evil. But many who advocated this view did do because they thought it would shorten the length of war, ultimately sparing countless people the horrors of an extended war.
I have no idea if Trump is mentally ill, but if you view some of his stances in this light they come across as more sympathetic. Building the wall would undeniably cause real stress and fear amongst a significant portion of Mexicans residing in the US. But it also might--at least in his view--improve the lot of the jobless US citizens affected by illegal immigration.
In politics it is really hard to develop policies that universally improve everyones' lives--someone is usually hurt. Environmental restrictions hurt businesses--which, contrary to popular belief, are employers as opposed to ( or at least in addition to) faceless greedy monsters. Just because someone is hurt does not mean that is the intent of the policy.
And on a side note, ever since taking psych 101 in college and hearing every other 18 yo frosh diagnosing their friends as having HPD or something, it's been a pet peeve of mine when people who aren't mental health professionals and haven't even met the patient feel confident diagnosing them with anything.
EDIT: As a side note, addressing the sexual assault stuff--dude is old. The way society treats women has changed, but not every individual changes with it. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill so much as they are living in a society that has in many ways passed them by. There was absolutely a time where many people would scoff at the idea that what he said consists of assault (unless maybe it was THEIR daughter). | I feel like you're just taking a very uncharitable view of a series of actions that, while negative, have little to do with mental illness. That is to say, someone who did these things but *wasn't* the famous donald trump that everyone's blogging about would just look like a regular asshole.
>He is extremely insecure about his appearance (tiny hands)
People in general hate being insulted on their appearance, and will strike back if they have a more aggressive/confident personality.
>about his perception of having wealth and success
People in general want to look as wealthy and successful as they can.
>He has exaggerated feelings of self importance the way he talks about himself in speeches and on twitter
*everyone* on twitter sounds self-important. It's pretty much part of the platform.
>He has a history of taking advantage of people (not paying contractors for services rendered) and lying about it.
Unfortunately common behavior in businesspeople.
>Also most troubling he is a pathological liar saying things and then flat out denying having said it even when presented with video or audio proof.
He's a politician now.
| 5qdrqy | CMV: Trump is mentally ill | Change my view please. I think Trump could be clinically diagnosed as mentally ill from his public words and actions. I would say he has narcissistic personality disorder or another PD.
He has shown that he lacks empathy and consistently behaves in unethical ways and that benefit him personally.
He is extremely insecure about his appearance (tiny hands) and about his perception of having wealth and success (when facts show a significant portion of his business ventures have been unsuccessful).
He has exaggerated feelings of self importance the way he talks about himself in speeches and on twitter (example he has said he knows more than the CIA and military generals which is verifiably false).
He has a history of taking advantage of people (not paying contractors for services rendered) and lying about it.
Pompous and arrogant talking over people in debates and the whole "grab her by the pussy" debacle.
Also most troubling he is a pathological liar saying things and then flat out denying having said it even when presented with video or audio proof.
I should have spent more time finding quotes and references but all of this can be verified from his tweets, speeches, and videos. | 1,485,474,323 | pretentiousRatt | dcyjjnc | dcyf4k9 | 6 | 2 |
CMV: There should be 1 Worldwide language.
You heard me, the reason I believe this is because it is a step into making earth border less and truly a global community. This language will be taught first before your native language; this is to stop the superiority complex some have over people who speak another language. This language is to be very simple, English has too many exceptions, Chinese is too long, this language will not have any of that ( think of Hangul the Korean language, it relatively easy to learn if started at a young age and is straightforward ) probably won't be Korean, but you get the idea. This will make it clear that we are all part of the same team, and too focus on the issues that matter, such as poverty, better quality of life for everyone,better technology. No physical borders to stop people from entering or leaving ( as that at this level the world will hopefully have come as one to explore the galaxy and make colonies or work on other worlds ). I know this seems far fetched, but people currently think for some reason it is bad to speak one language over another in certain countries, borders really are only stoping the advancements to make earth a peaceful and global community to be united in the hope and search for better quality of life for all, of course It could take decades and centuries. But when successful it would be worth it. Change my view | There should be one world language in the same way that we should have world peace. It would be great, but it's not very realistic.
On the other hand, I think we are approaching the benefits of a universal language from a different angle. Internet-based translation efforts are growing stronger every year. If internet connectivity and the accuracy of internet-based translation apps continue to improve, we will have all the benefits of a universal language without any of the downsides.
From another standpoint...language is weird. If you know anyone fluent in at least two languages, they will most likely admit to having thoughts or feelings that they can better express in a particular language over another. Languages are more than just a means of communication--they are often a very reflection of the society that speaks it. As many languages are so different from one another, I think it would be impossible to condense the unique nuances of every language into a universal tongue...or, at the very least, a lot would be lost in translation.
I would make the argument that investing in translation technology would allow open communication while maintaining the cultural importance and the hard-to-explain beauty of being able to use different languages to express nuanced thought...and that it is more realistic than teaching a new language to literally the entire world. | >This language is to be very simple, English has too many exceptions,
Though English has a lot of exceptions, it's rather simple to learn compared to other languages. Considering it's a popular choice around the world for secondary languages ([half of Europeans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_in_Europe) speak English), it's the most natural candidate for converting a current language to the World Language. | 5qebm4 | CMV: There should be 1 Worldwide language. | You heard me, the reason I believe this is because it is a step into making earth border less and truly a global community. This language will be taught first before your native language; this is to stop the superiority complex some have over people who speak another language. This language is to be very simple, English has too many exceptions, Chinese is too long, this language will not have any of that ( think of Hangul the Korean language, it relatively easy to learn if started at a young age and is straightforward ) probably won't be Korean, but you get the idea. This will make it clear that we are all part of the same team, and too focus on the issues that matter, such as poverty, better quality of life for everyone,better technology. No physical borders to stop people from entering or leaving ( as that at this level the world will hopefully have come as one to explore the galaxy and make colonies or work on other worlds ). I know this seems far fetched, but people currently think for some reason it is bad to speak one language over another in certain countries, borders really are only stoping the advancements to make earth a peaceful and global community to be united in the hope and search for better quality of life for all, of course It could take decades and centuries. But when successful it would be worth it. Change my view | 1,485,480,465 | Juanlopez17 | dcym0oi | dcylxna | 8 | 1 |
CMV: Today's Republican/conservative views are concretely inferior to liberal/progressive views
To preface, I don't wish to bash one party or the other based on the members in the government or the kinds of people who vote for each.
I believe that of the major issues presented by each party during the last few election cycles one can almost objectively conclude that liberal/progressive policies are better for the American people. But what is 'better?'
In the present we always have decisions to make, one ideology pulls in one direction and the other in another direction. Over time the midpoint or the compromise of what is actually implemented as policy also moves either in the conservative or liberal direction. So far I believe recent history has shown a movement to the progressive direction and I believe as people get more educated and less religious it will only keep moving there.
Therefore I can conclude that conservative ideas only serve to slow down the progress of society and are in a way almost vengeful because they feel their ideology slipping from their grasp. This implies that they are in some sense serving to sabotage the progress of society in the direction it will be in the future anyway. This is not just limited to the politicians but also the voters.
The other issue is that they are also hypocritical. They claim to want a smaller government but in turn wish to expand the law to cover more aspects of personal and social life, such as the womb, the bedroom, and marriage. They claim to be fiscally conservative but have run up higher deficits historically due to un-necessary wars, etc... They claim to be for the average person and non-elitist but then make policy to support the rich and corporations.
Let's look at some issues:
Abortion - pro-life has already been settled by the law, and I believe that since it is largely a religious issue it will keep heading into pro-choice further down the line. This is also evident by the recent protests of millions of women.
Education - society is heading in a direction where uneducated human labor will be replaced by robots. We are already at a point where a lot of jobs require computer skills and that is only growing. Cutting spending for education and refusing to make it a national priority to address the student debt crisis is objectively a mistake in this regard as we will need more and better educated people to compete in the economy of the rapidly approaching future.
Healthcare - as human beings I think we can all agree that we need to help the sick. We have laws in place which guarantee health service (in the ER) so we obviously as a society aren't willing to let people die. Why is it so contentious to have the country pay for that requirement. If you have a law that says you must heal, then why is the law that says we all must pay for our healing so controversial? Further, we all end up paying anyway for the uninsured who end up in said ER through insurance premiums, so it would make fiscal sense to have them pay into that system as well while they are healthy. This way we all share the cost. I think this is inevitable as it makes logical sense and is what the people want.
National security - the conservatives claim a very high ground on being stronger on national security, but other than overspending on national defense, they have not shown any results on this issue. Today's wars are different and military spending is not the right move. We need to invest in research and technology for the wars of the future. Also, I think a lot of the issues we have today such as ISIS are caused by the decisions made in conservative administrations.
Environment - I think it is scientifically evident that protecting the environment is becoming crucial. Not just because of global warming but leaks, spills, chemicals in the water supply, etc... Conservatives are all about deregulating to improve business without regard to the environment and refuse to support the inevitable future of renewable energy in order to extract every last dime from oil profits.
Economy and jobs - the republicans are all about jobs, the problem is they keep promising jobs from naturally dying industries coming back, manufacturing and coal mining, etc... While those jobs left because of economic reasons, they are never coming back because of automation and the cost of better alternatives. They keep trying to subsidize history at the expense of progress.
There are many others of course but I'll leave it at those. Given this I have concluded that the conservatives/Republicans are genuinely inferior in the direction they choose for this country.
I have yet to encounter a conservative who can lay out a convincing logical argument as to why that set of ideas is better for the people of this country. I am looking for someone who can maybe, if not convince me that the republican view is better, at least convince me that it is neutral but different and not truly inferior. | In the area of religious freedom, the conservative position has won in several cases, and still stands today: In [*Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia*] (https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/rosenberger-v-rector-visitors-of-university-of-virginia), the Supreme Court held that the University could not withhold funding from a Christian student newspaper if it was funding secular publications. In [*Burwell v. Hobby Lobby*] (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/), the Supreme Court held that Obamacare could not force a private corporation to fund birth control for its employees.
Second Amendment rights have also been resolved in favor of the conservative position: In [*District of Columbia v. Heller*] (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/), the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s gun control laws, recognizing an individual right to bear arms.
Campaign finance reform was struck down by the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court: In [*Citizens United v. FEC*] (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/), the McCain-Feingold limits on spending by corporations or Super PACs were held to be unconstutional.
The Supreme Court has also struck down several laws in favor of states' rights. Two examples are [*United States v. Lopez* and *United States v. Morrison*] (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/17/us/battle-on-federalism.html). In *Lopez*, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act, holding that regulating guns at schools was beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. In *Morrison*, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act that allowed victims to sue their attackers as outside of federal power. | I dont really know whether i consider myself a conservative or a liberal because i share view points with both.
unlike most, im a pro life atheist. i just can justify killing a baby simply because you dont want to deal with it and i dont think anyone should need to be religious to see this.
i also think that privatized health care and public healthcare both have a place in a society, public healthcare allows everyone to have access to help no matter their economic situation which i dont think anyone thinks is bad. But in such a system the hospitals can only provide a certain level of service due to the limited funds provided to them by the government for equipment, salaries, etc
im also in university currently so obviously i think that education is important but the debt crisis exists because too many people get useless degrees and expect 6 figure salaries when they graduate which is just realistic. Of course all education is valuable, but if youre gonna be borrowing money to go to school, be smart enough to get a degree that can actually make you money | 5qet0u | CMV: Today's Republican/conservative views are concretely inferior to liberal/progressive views | To preface, I don't wish to bash one party or the other based on the members in the government or the kinds of people who vote for each.
I believe that of the major issues presented by each party during the last few election cycles one can almost objectively conclude that liberal/progressive policies are better for the American people. But what is 'better?'
In the present we always have decisions to make, one ideology pulls in one direction and the other in another direction. Over time the midpoint or the compromise of what is actually implemented as policy also moves either in the conservative or liberal direction. So far I believe recent history has shown a movement to the progressive direction and I believe as people get more educated and less religious it will only keep moving there.
Therefore I can conclude that conservative ideas only serve to slow down the progress of society and are in a way almost vengeful because they feel their ideology slipping from their grasp. This implies that they are in some sense serving to sabotage the progress of society in the direction it will be in the future anyway. This is not just limited to the politicians but also the voters.
The other issue is that they are also hypocritical. They claim to want a smaller government but in turn wish to expand the law to cover more aspects of personal and social life, such as the womb, the bedroom, and marriage. They claim to be fiscally conservative but have run up higher deficits historically due to un-necessary wars, etc... They claim to be for the average person and non-elitist but then make policy to support the rich and corporations.
Let's look at some issues:
Abortion - pro-life has already been settled by the law, and I believe that since it is largely a religious issue it will keep heading into pro-choice further down the line. This is also evident by the recent protests of millions of women.
Education - society is heading in a direction where uneducated human labor will be replaced by robots. We are already at a point where a lot of jobs require computer skills and that is only growing. Cutting spending for education and refusing to make it a national priority to address the student debt crisis is objectively a mistake in this regard as we will need more and better educated people to compete in the economy of the rapidly approaching future.
Healthcare - as human beings I think we can all agree that we need to help the sick. We have laws in place which guarantee health service (in the ER) so we obviously as a society aren't willing to let people die. Why is it so contentious to have the country pay for that requirement. If you have a law that says you must heal, then why is the law that says we all must pay for our healing so controversial? Further, we all end up paying anyway for the uninsured who end up in said ER through insurance premiums, so it would make fiscal sense to have them pay into that system as well while they are healthy. This way we all share the cost. I think this is inevitable as it makes logical sense and is what the people want.
National security - the conservatives claim a very high ground on being stronger on national security, but other than overspending on national defense, they have not shown any results on this issue. Today's wars are different and military spending is not the right move. We need to invest in research and technology for the wars of the future. Also, I think a lot of the issues we have today such as ISIS are caused by the decisions made in conservative administrations.
Environment - I think it is scientifically evident that protecting the environment is becoming crucial. Not just because of global warming but leaks, spills, chemicals in the water supply, etc... Conservatives are all about deregulating to improve business without regard to the environment and refuse to support the inevitable future of renewable energy in order to extract every last dime from oil profits.
Economy and jobs - the republicans are all about jobs, the problem is they keep promising jobs from naturally dying industries coming back, manufacturing and coal mining, etc... While those jobs left because of economic reasons, they are never coming back because of automation and the cost of better alternatives. They keep trying to subsidize history at the expense of progress.
There are many others of course but I'll leave it at those. Given this I have concluded that the conservatives/Republicans are genuinely inferior in the direction they choose for this country.
I have yet to encounter a conservative who can lay out a convincing logical argument as to why that set of ideas is better for the people of this country. I am looking for someone who can maybe, if not convince me that the republican view is better, at least convince me that it is neutral but different and not truly inferior. | 1,485,486,408 | tesla123456 | dczsmmu | dczozed | 1 | 0 |
CMV: School uniforms should be abolished in public schools
A little context here. I'm a teacher in a public co-ed high school in New Zealand. It is extremely common for public schools to have uniforms here (I only know of 2 public high school out of around 75 in Auckland that don't have a uniform) but I know they are also common in most Commonwealth countries and some parts of the US.
As a teacher I absolutely hate enforcing uniform rules and I have been opposed to their existence since I was a kid. Here are the reasons I think they should be abolished.
1. The rules themselves are totally arbitrary and the actual design of many uniforms makes no logical sense. In NZ the high school uniforms are left over relics of 1950s Britain. Some schools require 13-14 year old boys to wear shorts even in winter while older boys are allowed pants. Many schools require girls to wear skirts only, no shorts. A good example of the ridiculousness of the rules is around shoes. Primary schools in much of NZ and especially the warmer North Island allow kids to go to school barefoot, even in the winter. Some ask kids to wear shoes to school but allow them to take them off upon arrival. Yet most high schools then require uncomfortable black leather shoes with wool knee socks all winter on the basis that black sneakers or canvas shoes are bad for their feet. It makes no logical sense but it's really just good old tradition. And so active teens are running around playing sports in leather dress shoes. And that's just one example.
2. Current educational theory all highlights the importance of treating students as individuals, helping the curriculum to fit them, urging them to fight peer pressure and stand out from the crowd. And then we force them all to dress exactly the same?
3. People argue that we are preparing them for the working world, where a employers will require a certain standard of dress. But as an adult in the working world I have the freedom to choose not to take a job where I'm required to wear a uniform or a dress code I disagree with. Kids have no freedom to choose their school, they are compelled by law to attend and their parents have final say over what school they go to. And putting them in a strict uniform and making them never have to think about what they're going to wear is not a great way to teach them how to dress respectfully for a future job. All they know is uniform and casual wear.
4. I don't think uniforms eliminate class differences the way people think they do either. The kids can still tell from your phone, from your second-hand uniform, from the car your parents drive how wealthy you are. And I haven't seen any more bullying in non-uniform schools. Uniforms also tend to be very expensive since the school often has a monopoly on their sale, so they aren't likely to save anyone money.
I think uniforms are mainly used as a marketing tool to make schools look better. The leather shoes aren't better for the feet, they're worse but look nicer as the kids walk home. At intermediate school (age 11-13) we were allowed to be barefoot all day at school but had to put on the nice leather shoes to walk home and I'm sure it was about the image. Parents think a nice uniform means good discipline in the school and this all comes at the cost of kids' comfort and individuality. And for teachers it means wasting time telling kids off for the wrong length socks.
But I know the majority backs uniforms to the hilt, so what am I missing? Convince me there is a place for them.
Edit: Formatting. | Italy here, the opposite side of the world: you dont have to wear uniforms here, but everyday parents have to fight their children who scream for new shoes and branded clothes to show in school. I used to dress in rags to express my disgust towards this shite for all my teens and became a kind of diy punk. I would have fought uniforms as well, because of that ghost of freedom you search when you are young enough, nevertheless i wish we had uniforms. | You can have fun building a bridge in wood shop dressed as if you're serious about building a bridge.
40% of kids are college ready. Trade school kids take the same community college entrance exam as 4 year bound kids. The other 60% will be paying for high school classes in college and get no credit.
What the world needs are literate people with a fire to defeat the likes of Trump. Not chicks in booty shorts pining for how it could have been. | 5qfotl | CMV: School uniforms should be abolished in public schools | A little context here. I'm a teacher in a public co-ed high school in New Zealand. It is extremely common for public schools to have uniforms here (I only know of 2 public high school out of around 75 in Auckland that don't have a uniform) but I know they are also common in most Commonwealth countries and some parts of the US.
As a teacher I absolutely hate enforcing uniform rules and I have been opposed to their existence since I was a kid. Here are the reasons I think they should be abolished.
1. The rules themselves are totally arbitrary and the actual design of many uniforms makes no logical sense. In NZ the high school uniforms are left over relics of 1950s Britain. Some schools require 13-14 year old boys to wear shorts even in winter while older boys are allowed pants. Many schools require girls to wear skirts only, no shorts. A good example of the ridiculousness of the rules is around shoes. Primary schools in much of NZ and especially the warmer North Island allow kids to go to school barefoot, even in the winter. Some ask kids to wear shoes to school but allow them to take them off upon arrival. Yet most high schools then require uncomfortable black leather shoes with wool knee socks all winter on the basis that black sneakers or canvas shoes are bad for their feet. It makes no logical sense but it's really just good old tradition. And so active teens are running around playing sports in leather dress shoes. And that's just one example.
2. Current educational theory all highlights the importance of treating students as individuals, helping the curriculum to fit them, urging them to fight peer pressure and stand out from the crowd. And then we force them all to dress exactly the same?
3. People argue that we are preparing them for the working world, where a employers will require a certain standard of dress. But as an adult in the working world I have the freedom to choose not to take a job where I'm required to wear a uniform or a dress code I disagree with. Kids have no freedom to choose their school, they are compelled by law to attend and their parents have final say over what school they go to. And putting them in a strict uniform and making them never have to think about what they're going to wear is not a great way to teach them how to dress respectfully for a future job. All they know is uniform and casual wear.
4. I don't think uniforms eliminate class differences the way people think they do either. The kids can still tell from your phone, from your second-hand uniform, from the car your parents drive how wealthy you are. And I haven't seen any more bullying in non-uniform schools. Uniforms also tend to be very expensive since the school often has a monopoly on their sale, so they aren't likely to save anyone money.
I think uniforms are mainly used as a marketing tool to make schools look better. The leather shoes aren't better for the feet, they're worse but look nicer as the kids walk home. At intermediate school (age 11-13) we were allowed to be barefoot all day at school but had to put on the nice leather shoes to walk home and I'm sure it was about the image. Parents think a nice uniform means good discipline in the school and this all comes at the cost of kids' comfort and individuality. And for teachers it means wasting time telling kids off for the wrong length socks.
But I know the majority backs uniforms to the hilt, so what am I missing? Convince me there is a place for them.
Edit: Formatting. | 1,485,498,957 | newkiwiguy | dczuwmr | dczie8c | 3 | 1 |
CMV: Wavedashing and L-cancelling are not positive features in Super Smash Brothers Melee in their current state.
I don't watch competitive Melee. I find it far too mechanically complex. While I don't agree with Masahiro Sakurai's insistence that there shouldn't be a competitive scene for the game, I think its current state is flawed.
To be good at Melee competitively, the perceived baseline of competence is the wavedash or the L-cancel, depending on who you ask. Wavedashes are hard to do, require unintuitive inputs, and really only matter on the highest level of play. L-cancelling is also unintuitive, and realistically speaking, anyone you come against in a tournament setting is going to know how to do it. This means that you don't gain an advantage, but rather avoid a detriment imposed by a flaw in the game itself.
I think that the necessity of both of these techniques is needless at best and almost abusive at worst. The only reason they're still around is because Melee is over a decade old, and there exists no way to patch it. Wavedashing has been said by the games developers to have been an unintended interaction with the game's physics engine - one that would certainly have been patched out if the game released today.
Obviously, if one wants to become a competitive Smash player, one must learn these techniques, but I do not believe that the techniques themselves bring anything to the table for the game. I think a version of Melee that:
* Made wavedashing a supported feature (easier to pull off)
* Removed L-cancelling
would be a better game. I can't imagine that the pros would scoff at the prospect of using brainpower for things other than inputs for maintenance. This would put more emphasis on the strategy of the game, and overall improve high-level play.
Obligatory note: I do not mean to demean or trivialize the skill of pro Smash players. The difficulty of these inputs is impressive, but ultimately borne of necessity rather than actual innovation. This seems to run perpendicular to the real reason someone should be good at a fighting game: they are good at fighting in said game.
EDIT: I do not take issue with the use or existence of wavedashing. I take issue with the fact that, because the game is set in stone, it's very difficult to do. A new player would never be able to stumble into figuring out a wavedash without outside help. Had the feature been included on purpose, and thus easier to pull off, the game would be that much better for it. | I think you overestimate the difficulty of wavedashing and L-canceling. To be frank they are some of the easiest techs. Wavedashing is 3 inputs and L-canceling is just one, and neither are very frame-tight.
I'm going to focus on the merits of wavedashing more than L-canceling.
In smash bros games without wavedashing and dash dancing, when you dash, you are committed. You can only jump, shield, roll, grab or dashattack. You can't crouch until the dash is done. As a result the games become very defensive because all your attacks are very telegraphed. Taking away L-canceling also means that aerials are never safe on shield, and so most approaching from the air is shield-grabbed. You also can't step backwards like you can in other fighting games. Wavedashing serves that purpose; to step back and to make approaches less telegraphed.
A second major benefit of wavedashing is as an out of shield option (OoS). In melee, when you let go of shield, you have to wait 15 frames before you are actionable. That's no good because you get locked down by projectiles extremely easily. But by jumping out of shield and wavedashing, projectiles become nerfed just a bit. It also adds a more interesting dynamic to close-quarters interaction on shield.
You say it would be beneficial to add wavedash as an input rather than a series of three. Firstly this won't happen based on the fact that nintendo hasn't and will not in the immediate future create another smash bros game like melee. Secondly, it would not be better. By using the analog stick to wavedash you can achieve different wavedash lengths, which adds more skill and options than a button could.
These techniques are technically not needed. Watch a video of Borp's Sheik. He *Never* wavedashes. He wins and does well through strong fundamentals.
Lastly, as someone who demolishes people who are only good at tech skill, while it increases your options, it does not strictly make you good. You have to know how to use options and to read your opponent to be good. | >I don't watch competitive Melee.
I mean, if you don't watch competitive play, then of course complex techniques won't seem positive to you. They only matter at that high level of play, so by not watching that level of play, you are discounting an entire play-style without really watching it.
>To be good at Melee competitively, the perceived baseline of competence is the wavedash or the L-cancel, depending on who you ask.
I mean, in any skilled competition, there is some skill that needs to be refined for baseline competence. Do you believe that delivering a proper serve in Tennis and Ping Pong is not a positive feature? Do you think that American Football and Rugby would be better if players didn't have to worry about carrying the ball? Is dribbling in Basketball and Football perpendicular to the purpose of the game, get the ball in the goal? In SSBM, Wavedashing and L-Cancelling are just as important as these skills in other sports. Just because it isn't knocking the other player off the stage doesn't mean it can't help toward that goal. | 5qi8sw | CMV: Wavedashing and L-cancelling are not positive features in Super Smash Brothers Melee in their current state. | I don't watch competitive Melee. I find it far too mechanically complex. While I don't agree with Masahiro Sakurai's insistence that there shouldn't be a competitive scene for the game, I think its current state is flawed.
To be good at Melee competitively, the perceived baseline of competence is the wavedash or the L-cancel, depending on who you ask. Wavedashes are hard to do, require unintuitive inputs, and really only matter on the highest level of play. L-cancelling is also unintuitive, and realistically speaking, anyone you come against in a tournament setting is going to know how to do it. This means that you don't gain an advantage, but rather avoid a detriment imposed by a flaw in the game itself.
I think that the necessity of both of these techniques is needless at best and almost abusive at worst. The only reason they're still around is because Melee is over a decade old, and there exists no way to patch it. Wavedashing has been said by the games developers to have been an unintended interaction with the game's physics engine - one that would certainly have been patched out if the game released today.
Obviously, if one wants to become a competitive Smash player, one must learn these techniques, but I do not believe that the techniques themselves bring anything to the table for the game. I think a version of Melee that:
* Made wavedashing a supported feature (easier to pull off)
* Removed L-cancelling
would be a better game. I can't imagine that the pros would scoff at the prospect of using brainpower for things other than inputs for maintenance. This would put more emphasis on the strategy of the game, and overall improve high-level play.
Obligatory note: I do not mean to demean or trivialize the skill of pro Smash players. The difficulty of these inputs is impressive, but ultimately borne of necessity rather than actual innovation. This seems to run perpendicular to the real reason someone should be good at a fighting game: they are good at fighting in said game.
EDIT: I do not take issue with the use or existence of wavedashing. I take issue with the fact that, because the game is set in stone, it's very difficult to do. A new player would never be able to stumble into figuring out a wavedash without outside help. Had the feature been included on purpose, and thus easier to pull off, the game would be that much better for it. | 1,485,536,600 | DragonsBloodQ | dczhi2a | dczh13h | 32 | 18 |
CMV: Coffee is just tea
Tea is the infusion of flavors from dried, and treated, parts of plants. Teas include not just drinks made from leaves of tea plants, but herbs, spices and other flavors as well. Some herbal teas include the cooking or roasting of plant matter. Coffee beans are plant parts which are treated in an identical manner.
Some methods of brewing coffee is just a way to quickly infuse the flavor of the coffee beans. But the version fo brewing that coffee aficionados most appreciate (cold brewing and french press for example) steep the coffee in exactly the same way as teas are made.
Therefore, coffee is really just a form of tea.
EDIT: The point has been made that tea is a regulated term in other parts of the world. So I'd like to modify my contention to "in those areas of the world where herbal teas are accepted as a type of tea." | Coffee is a bean, whereas tea is a leaf. Specifically, for all teas besides herbal, tea is from a specific plant, as well- and there's some discussion over whether herbal tea is really tea, since it doesn't come from, well, tea leaves. Tea is sometimes legally regulated to only belong to the specific plant, though [not in the U.S. according to this article](https://www.teaclass.com/lesson_0103.html). It's not about the brewing method, it's about the physical substance used. | By this definition, is every drink actually just a tea? Wine is plant matter in water, apple juice is just plant matter in water, maple syrup is just plant matter in water... | 5qicju | CMV: Coffee is just tea | Tea is the infusion of flavors from dried, and treated, parts of plants. Teas include not just drinks made from leaves of tea plants, but herbs, spices and other flavors as well. Some herbal teas include the cooking or roasting of plant matter. Coffee beans are plant parts which are treated in an identical manner.
Some methods of brewing coffee is just a way to quickly infuse the flavor of the coffee beans. But the version fo brewing that coffee aficionados most appreciate (cold brewing and french press for example) steep the coffee in exactly the same way as teas are made.
Therefore, coffee is really just a form of tea.
EDIT: The point has been made that tea is a regulated term in other parts of the world. So I'd like to modify my contention to "in those areas of the world where herbal teas are accepted as a type of tea." | 1,485,537,631 | kingpatzer | dczge8f | dczga21 | 19 | 18 |
CMV: I think NPR has made a large mistake in refusing to label Trump's "falsehoods" as lies
I think NPR has made a large mistake in refusing to label Trump’s “falsehoods” as lies as it confirms stereotypes of center-left organizations being unwilling to take a firm stand when faced with strong opposition, and (please CMV) makes me think NPR stands in danger of moderating itself into irrelevance.
I was really annoyed to read this article from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511503605/npr-and-the-l-word-intent-is-key
And feel their follow-up was worse:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2017/01/26/511798707/the-pros-and-cons-of-nprs-policy-of-not-calling-out-lies
I was one of the 100s of emails they received expressing anger about their legalistic attitude in distinguishing ‘falsehoods’ from ‘lies’ in order to avoiding driving people away.
The quotes from the head of their news dept, "The more the administration yells at us the calmer our presentation should be. We should avoid being baited into fights that seem to confirm the claim that we are at war," and standards editor, “"We are not using the L-word," adding that any requests for exceptions must first be approved by senior newsroom executives,” actively alarm me because they seem to be avoiding the facts on the ground and give the impression that the senior echelon at NPR doesn’t regard the current situation between the president and the media seriously.
(mods please let me know if I need to make the CMV statement more focused, still trying to sort through why this irritates me.)
| I took a class on propaganda once. One of the key tricks to use the middle ground fallacy. Say you are a liar, and your opponent is telling the truth. It's tough to claim that you are telling the truth, and it's tough to claim that your opponent is lying. But say you convince people that there is a hint of truth to your argument and a hint of truth to their argument too. This is the middle ground fallacy, but people tend to buy it in the name of making peace. This ultimately elevates the liar to partially true, and lowers the truth teller to a partial liar. This is Trump's strategy, and it's working pretty well so far.
The problem with using the term lie is that Trump often has a hint of truth to the stuff he says. It's not factual truth, but it *feels* true to the preconceived notions of his supporters. In this way, when the media calls out something Trump says as a full lie instead a partial lie, it seems to go too far in Trump supporter's mind. There is a hint of truth there so calling it a lie is wrong. This perfectly fits into Trump's narrative about the media, where anyone who isn't Trump or Breitbart cannot be trusted.
I think by saving the word "lie" for when there is truly crystal clear evidence of intent, NPR saves some power for when they do decide to use it. If they call his "hint of truth" stuff a lie, then they can't push it farther when they want to call out a blatant lie. If I already called you Hitler for simply being racist, I can't call you anything worse when you start committing genocide in the name of national defense.
I'm not sure that NPR has much room to move here. They are considered to be part of the mainstream media, and even if they try to retain power for the term, they will be lumped in with other news outlets.
This isn't really NPR's fault. They are a news outlet trying to tell the truth going up against a politician whose explicit goal is to persuade and mislead. To be fair, that's partially the goal of all politicians, but Trump has taken it a lot farther. It's hard to take the high road when someone is swiping at your ankles. NPR's goal isn't to fight against the administration. They aren't trying to create anti-propaganda. They are trying to report the truth. And they have to do it with utmost care if they want to retain creditability. | I think they are demonstrating journalistic integrity. It's just good policy to maintain verifiable facts, which is what they are doing. Saying "lies" implies intent that is hard to prove and shows bias, which is what they are trying to avoid. It seems like you are equating "non-biased" as irrelevant.
I think a BIG problem with media today is that they try to generate outrage with inflammatory language that is not always verifiable or true. FOX news talking about how Obama wants to take away guns isn't news, it's a soapbox. They aren't reporting facts, they're reporting angry opinions they know their viewer base shares in order to falsely generate more viewership.
I think NPR demonstrates integrity by actively avoiding this kind of behavior, and not becoming the liberal version of FOX. It reports the facts as they know them, and leaves it to the listeners (you) to interpret those facts how you will. They don't need to TELL you Trump is lying (that's hard to prove and journalistically hard to defend if they were called out). They will just present you with the facts, "Here are the things Trump said that are untrue," and you can use that information to form your own opinion. | 5qiwut | CMV: I think NPR has made a large mistake in refusing to label Trump's "falsehoods" as lies | I think NPR has made a large mistake in refusing to label Trump’s “falsehoods” as lies as it confirms stereotypes of center-left organizations being unwilling to take a firm stand when faced with strong opposition, and (please CMV) makes me think NPR stands in danger of moderating itself into irrelevance.
I was really annoyed to read this article from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511503605/npr-and-the-l-word-intent-is-key
And feel their follow-up was worse:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2017/01/26/511798707/the-pros-and-cons-of-nprs-policy-of-not-calling-out-lies
I was one of the 100s of emails they received expressing anger about their legalistic attitude in distinguishing ‘falsehoods’ from ‘lies’ in order to avoiding driving people away.
The quotes from the head of their news dept, "The more the administration yells at us the calmer our presentation should be. We should avoid being baited into fights that seem to confirm the claim that we are at war," and standards editor, “"We are not using the L-word," adding that any requests for exceptions must first be approved by senior newsroom executives,” actively alarm me because they seem to be avoiding the facts on the ground and give the impression that the senior echelon at NPR doesn’t regard the current situation between the president and the media seriously.
(mods please let me know if I need to make the CMV statement more focused, still trying to sort through why this irritates me.)
| 1,485,543,302 | verpa | dczuwxe | dczu4t5 | 16 | 4 |
CMV: Nozick's conclusion from the utility monster thought experiment is flawed.
Nozick's thought experiment postulates a being that receives greater utility from a unit of resources than any other being, and should thus be given all (or at least unproportionally many) resources in priority over any other being. Consequently, the existence of utility monsters makes utilitarianism very implausible.
This argument is wrong for the following reasons:
1. For any being that we have ever observed, it is true that the more utility they gain, the more their utility efficiency (i.e. received utility per unit of resources) decreases. For example, giving someone a single TV might give them X utility, whereas giving them 10 TVs will not give them 10 X utility. This is true for specific goods (TV, house, car, etc) as much as it is for general goods (money). The most plausible conclusion would be to assume that the **inverse relation between received utility and utility efficiency** is a necessary property of moral objects. Therefore, a utility monster's utility efficiency would rapidly decrease as it is given resources to the point where its utility efficiency reaches a level that is similar to those of other beings that may receive resources.
* EDIT: What I did not think about at first is the fact that the non-utility-monster's utility efficiency would increase the more resources are rerouted away from them towards a utility monster, according to the same inverse relation I talked about above. At some point the non-utility-monster's utility efficiency would reach that of the utility monster, which would eliminate the problem regardless of whether the utility monster has diminishing returns or not.
2. Both the **relative availability and the type of a resource** imply different utility efficiencies for different beings. A TV in India can directly be given to a local citizen whereas it would require additional resources to give it to a person in the US. The utility efficiency of beings in another star system for resources on earth for example would in all likelihood be drastically be reduced by this effect, to the point where it is lower than those of all humans on earth.
3. **~~Utility monsters~~ Weak utility monsters already exist** in our world and are treated by a lot of people in accordance with their higher utility efficiency. A starving child in Africa for example would gain vastly more utility by a transaction of $100 than almost all people in first world countries would; and lots of people in first world countries give money to charitable causes knowing that that will do way more good than what they could do with the money. Ridiculing utility monsters in utilitarianism as "embarassing" also ridicules most people who support charity (which incidentally includes Nozick himself).
4. Any **need-based morality** implies the existence of ~~utility monsters~~ weak utility monsters, at least to some extent. A need-based morality says that someone with a greater need should receive more resources/ utility/ help/ etc. This very idea includes the possibility of one person having way greater needs than all other persons and therefore receiving all or way more resources than everyone else, which by Nozick's terms would then be described as a utility monster. Essentially, the problem of the existence of utility monsters boils down to whether need should play a role in morality. That is a non-trivial question, which in no way is answered by Nozick's thought experiment.
5. EDIT: Humans already are **utility monsters with respect to animals**: We have way greater utility efficiencies than animals, such that they'd have to be suffering quite a lot (i.e. high utility efficiency) to be on par with humans; the same way humans would have to suffer quite a lot to be on par with the utility monster in terms of utility efficiency. Suggesting that utility monsters (if they can even exist) should have the same rights and get the same treatment as normal humans (i.e. not the utilitarian position) would then imply that humans should have the same rights and get the same treatment as animals. | You're significantly misunderstanding Nozick's argument, and confusing utility monsters with the mere idea of different utility efficiency.
But Nozick's utility monster is much more than someone with high utility efficiency. A utility monster also needs to be able to take in lots of utility while still having very high utility efficiency. What you say in your first point:
> Therefore, a utility monster's utility efficiency would rapidly decrease as it is given resources to the point where its utility efficiency reaches a level that is similar to those of other beings that may receive resources.
doesn't really make sense as a statement: by *definition* a utility monster's utility efficiency doesn't rapidly decrease, because if it did, it wouldn't be a utility monster. What you're really arguing is that you don't think utility monsters exist.
The problem is that even if utility efficiency goes down as utility increases, we have no reason to think that it happens *rapidly* for every being. A utility monster could be a being which obtains massive utility from every additional bit of resources, and even though it gets decreasing returns - each $100 worth of resources brings it less new utility than the previous $100 - its utility efficiency starts so high, and decreases so slowly, that it will consume everything before its utility efficiency matches that of other beings. | >inverse relation between received utility and utility efficiency
Except that's not what it would fly in the face of the concept of building tolerance. A fairly well proven concept of the human mind. If the morality follows the rules of human emotions or mind than it would instead be a problem a direct relationship.
>Both the relative availability and the type of a resource imply different utility efficiencies for different beings.
Thus the utility monster naturally is implied...
>Ridiculing utility monsters in utilitarianism as "embarassing" also ridicules most people who support charity (which incidentally includes Nozick himself).
Not agreeing with utilitarianism doesn't imply that one isn't charitable, nor does it imply that one doesn't act by another moral system. Nor does it imply that charities follow utilitarian mindsets.
>Essentially, the problem of the existence of utility monsters boils down to whether need should play a role in morality. That is a non-trivial question, which in no way is answered by Nozick's thought experiment.
Except that's not exactly what its about. Rather his criticism is looking more at utilitarianism creating mosters, and excusing monsters. For example if there was a highly successful productive person, who happened to be a serial killer that only killed hobos or unsuccessful people. Than his actions would be excused under a more utilitarian principles because his pleasure was more than their utility... The problem is that NEED is a pretty bad standard of morality when it comes down to it, it's a pretty bad and almost impossible to measure metric. | 5qjljk | CMV: Nozick's conclusion from the utility monster thought experiment is flawed. | Nozick's thought experiment postulates a being that receives greater utility from a unit of resources than any other being, and should thus be given all (or at least unproportionally many) resources in priority over any other being. Consequently, the existence of utility monsters makes utilitarianism very implausible.
This argument is wrong for the following reasons:
1. For any being that we have ever observed, it is true that the more utility they gain, the more their utility efficiency (i.e. received utility per unit of resources) decreases. For example, giving someone a single TV might give them X utility, whereas giving them 10 TVs will not give them 10 X utility. This is true for specific goods (TV, house, car, etc) as much as it is for general goods (money). The most plausible conclusion would be to assume that the **inverse relation between received utility and utility efficiency** is a necessary property of moral objects. Therefore, a utility monster's utility efficiency would rapidly decrease as it is given resources to the point where its utility efficiency reaches a level that is similar to those of other beings that may receive resources.
* EDIT: What I did not think about at first is the fact that the non-utility-monster's utility efficiency would increase the more resources are rerouted away from them towards a utility monster, according to the same inverse relation I talked about above. At some point the non-utility-monster's utility efficiency would reach that of the utility monster, which would eliminate the problem regardless of whether the utility monster has diminishing returns or not.
2. Both the **relative availability and the type of a resource** imply different utility efficiencies for different beings. A TV in India can directly be given to a local citizen whereas it would require additional resources to give it to a person in the US. The utility efficiency of beings in another star system for resources on earth for example would in all likelihood be drastically be reduced by this effect, to the point where it is lower than those of all humans on earth.
3. **~~Utility monsters~~ Weak utility monsters already exist** in our world and are treated by a lot of people in accordance with their higher utility efficiency. A starving child in Africa for example would gain vastly more utility by a transaction of $100 than almost all people in first world countries would; and lots of people in first world countries give money to charitable causes knowing that that will do way more good than what they could do with the money. Ridiculing utility monsters in utilitarianism as "embarassing" also ridicules most people who support charity (which incidentally includes Nozick himself).
4. Any **need-based morality** implies the existence of ~~utility monsters~~ weak utility monsters, at least to some extent. A need-based morality says that someone with a greater need should receive more resources/ utility/ help/ etc. This very idea includes the possibility of one person having way greater needs than all other persons and therefore receiving all or way more resources than everyone else, which by Nozick's terms would then be described as a utility monster. Essentially, the problem of the existence of utility monsters boils down to whether need should play a role in morality. That is a non-trivial question, which in no way is answered by Nozick's thought experiment.
5. EDIT: Humans already are **utility monsters with respect to animals**: We have way greater utility efficiencies than animals, such that they'd have to be suffering quite a lot (i.e. high utility efficiency) to be on par with humans; the same way humans would have to suffer quite a lot to be on par with the utility monster in terms of utility efficiency. Suggesting that utility monsters (if they can even exist) should have the same rights and get the same treatment as normal humans (i.e. not the utilitarian position) would then imply that humans should have the same rights and get the same treatment as animals. | 1,485,550,055 | LappenX | dczw6uv | dczu0ud | 3 | 1 |
CMV: You cannot change your political opinions by choice, and therefore they should be treated no differently than religion with regard to civil rights.
Many are of the belief that one should not be able to discriminate against another on the basis of their race, religion, gender, etc. The primary motivation behind this mentality, as I understand it, is that these things are largely not within one's control, and therefore it is morally wrong to treat them differently as a result of those characteristics.
However, my assertion is that one's political beliefs, even going as far as racism and sexism, are no more within one's control than their race, and certainly no more than their religion.
I base this on the contention that your political beliefs are not a conscious choice that you have made, and my evidence is that **you cannot willfully change them**. For example, I believe that homosexual people are no different than anyone else, that they did not choose that sexuality, and that there is nothing morally wrong with their lifestyle.
I did not CHOOSE to believe that, and I could not force myself to believe otherwise. I live in the South. It would actually be a lot easier for me if I just went along with the religious crowd and condemned homosexuality as a sin, but I can't do that. I cannot MAKE myself believe that it's wrong, anymore than I can simply decide to believe in God, or believe that Santa is real.
In other words, my belief regarding homosexuality is not within my control, but rather something that is simply part of who I am.
Therefore, it logically follows that someone who disagrees with me ALSO did not arrive at their conclusion by choice, and therefore also cannot willingly change it.
Therefore, it THEN logically follows that if one believes that discrimination on the basis of religion should be forbidden, then so should discrimination based on political opinion or affiliation. That is to say that if you cannot eject someone from your store for wearing a cross around their neck, you likewise cannot refuse service for that same person wearing a Trump '16 shirt, or even a swastika.
I am tempted to extend this as far as race, but I will stop with religion for this post.
So that is my argument, and I challenge you to convince me otherwise. Your political beliefs are as much as part of you as your religion. They are unchangeable by will alone, and to argue civil rights for one, but not the other, is inconsistent.
| The problem with suggesting this is that unlike other characteristics, political beliefs by their very nature seek to control people outside of them. The color of a person's skin does not change how you live your life. The gender a person is does not affect how you live your life. The height of a person does not affect how you live your life. The political beliefs of a person can affect how you live your life though.
If I am pro-life and come across a pro-choice woman, she should seek to discriminate against me because my intentions are to control her body through legislation which would force my beliefs on her. My goal is to make it illegal for her to have an abortion and make doing so a punishable offense.
If I am a rich republican who opposes the ACA and come across poor democrat who is on Obamacare, he should discriminate against me because my goal is to get the ACA repealed. I am actually trying to repeal legislation which allows him to have health insurance.
In a more extreme setting, if I am a white, sexist, neo-nazi nationalist and I come across a non white, non Protestant female, she should absolutely discriminate against me because my goal is to have her removed from the country by force. I am trying to kick her out of her home and leave her with nothing but the cloths on her back in a foreign land.
Political beliefs need to be discriminated against because it is two people who want to be able to control the other through force of law.
The difference between religion and political beliefs though are separated by a thin line, but there is a line there. Many times they will overlap because of the nature of religion, but they do not have to. As long as they don't, the result is two people who disagree on what happens after death and what you should do in this life in order to reach the bssr afterlife, but that it is. Both can live their lives without ever forcing their religion on each other. The moment they try to force their religion on one another though, those beliefs have become political, even though they are based in religion, creating that point of overlap.
It doesn't matter much if you can or can't change your political views if your political views will cause me harm, I have to discriminate in order to ensure my own survival, and possibly even the survival of others. This cannot be said about race, sex, or religion (so long as that religion stays out of the political realm). | > The primary motivation behind this mentality, as I understand it, is that these things are largely not within one's control, and therefore it is morally wrong to treat them differently as a result of those characteristics.
i don't know for how many people this is the primary motivation, but for me it is not. the primary motivation fo me is "don't discriminate against people for being or doing something that doesn't harm others."
being homosexual is not a choice. being in a homosexual realationship is a choice. both do not justify discrimination, because they don't harm anyone.
i agree that you can't change your own beliefs without the help of outside influences. however, this isn't limited to politics. if you believe murder is okay, you can't willfully change that either. if you have a desire to kill people and not enough self control to stop yourself, you can't willfully change that. but clearly we can't let people murder whoever they want because "they can't choose to stop and we don't want to discriminate."
> That is to say that if you cannot eject someone from your store for wearing a cross around their neck, you likewise cannot refuse service for that same person wearing a Trump '16 shirt, or even a swastika.
if someone wears a swastika shirt you should be allowed to kick them out of your store because they are spreading a hatefull message, even if they can't just choose to stop.
if someone wears a shirt with the text "you will all burn in hell" on it, you should also be allowed to kick them out for the same reason. not all religious believes are worth protecting.
btw, showing them that their actions/beliefs are not okay by kicking them out of your store might be the outside influence that causes them to change.
| 5qjmaj | CMV: You cannot change your political opinions by choice, and therefore they should be treated no differently than religion with regard to civil rights. | Many are of the belief that one should not be able to discriminate against another on the basis of their race, religion, gender, etc. The primary motivation behind this mentality, as I understand it, is that these things are largely not within one's control, and therefore it is morally wrong to treat them differently as a result of those characteristics.
However, my assertion is that one's political beliefs, even going as far as racism and sexism, are no more within one's control than their race, and certainly no more than their religion.
I base this on the contention that your political beliefs are not a conscious choice that you have made, and my evidence is that **you cannot willfully change them**. For example, I believe that homosexual people are no different than anyone else, that they did not choose that sexuality, and that there is nothing morally wrong with their lifestyle.
I did not CHOOSE to believe that, and I could not force myself to believe otherwise. I live in the South. It would actually be a lot easier for me if I just went along with the religious crowd and condemned homosexuality as a sin, but I can't do that. I cannot MAKE myself believe that it's wrong, anymore than I can simply decide to believe in God, or believe that Santa is real.
In other words, my belief regarding homosexuality is not within my control, but rather something that is simply part of who I am.
Therefore, it logically follows that someone who disagrees with me ALSO did not arrive at their conclusion by choice, and therefore also cannot willingly change it.
Therefore, it THEN logically follows that if one believes that discrimination on the basis of religion should be forbidden, then so should discrimination based on political opinion or affiliation. That is to say that if you cannot eject someone from your store for wearing a cross around their neck, you likewise cannot refuse service for that same person wearing a Trump '16 shirt, or even a swastika.
I am tempted to extend this as far as race, but I will stop with religion for this post.
So that is my argument, and I challenge you to convince me otherwise. Your political beliefs are as much as part of you as your religion. They are unchangeable by will alone, and to argue civil rights for one, but not the other, is inconsistent.
| 1,485,550,266 | scottevil110 | dd01z39 | dczuigm | 2 | 1 |
CMV: Finger Guns are the Ultimate Flirtatious Gesture
Flirtatious Gestures are a vague concept. Any movement can be considered flirtatious in the right context. However there are also many standard moves that can be considered such as a wave, hug, handshake, arm over the shoulder, as well as more explicit one such as pointing at your crotch and wiggling your eyebrows or air humping while maintaining eye contact.
However, finger guns are the epitome of the flirtatious gesture. They are both innocuous enough to be used without fear of being a creep and sexual enough to elicit a blush or a giggle.
Finger guns are also the best because they can be used by anyone. Man to woman, woman to man, man to man, woman to woman. As well a person who is just terrible with flirting/is plain awkward can use them to, at the very least, confuse the recipient into thinking the awkwardness is a goofy charm. On the flip-side, a social flower can use them to be disarming to the recipient; to show that they need not be placed out of the recipient's league because of their looks/confidence. Finger guns are the great equalizer and can make any (non-serious) situation easier to swallow for both parties.
If a person does not appreciate receiving finger guns then that's a good thing too, since they are probably not very fun and you dont want to deal with them anyways.
Lastly, finger guns are not ambivalent. If you give someone the guns, they know you want to talk with them and are approving of who they are. note: if you try to flirt with a murderer who used guns to do the deed, they may think you are teasing them. but I think that is a rare enough occurrence that you shouldn't be dissuaded.
| You make a compelling argument, but you omitted the end-all-be-all of flirtatious gestures.
The wink.
It's subtle, and it's often vague enough that you don't know what's in store behind it. The anticipation and promise of something exciting is huge. It doesn't have any of the obnoxious overtones of crotch thrusting, yet it beats out the finger gun (finger bang?) because the gun can often be seen as juvenile and not very sexy.
Of course, mastering the wink is no easy task. But, if mastered, it is the most valuable tool in a flirt's arsenal of gestures. | I think that although finger guns can be quite effective in some situations, in others it's a bit too overt and can even be perceived as cheesy. Sometimes you need to be subtle, or smooth, or sophisticated in your flirting, and I don't think finger guns always will fit that description.
Therefore it's a "sometimes tool" which in my book disqualifies it from being something you can tack on "ultimate" to. Something that's "ultimate" would work in most (if not all) situations. | 5qjw7p | CMV: Finger Guns are the Ultimate Flirtatious Gesture | Flirtatious Gestures are a vague concept. Any movement can be considered flirtatious in the right context. However there are also many standard moves that can be considered such as a wave, hug, handshake, arm over the shoulder, as well as more explicit one such as pointing at your crotch and wiggling your eyebrows or air humping while maintaining eye contact.
However, finger guns are the epitome of the flirtatious gesture. They are both innocuous enough to be used without fear of being a creep and sexual enough to elicit a blush or a giggle.
Finger guns are also the best because they can be used by anyone. Man to woman, woman to man, man to man, woman to woman. As well a person who is just terrible with flirting/is plain awkward can use them to, at the very least, confuse the recipient into thinking the awkwardness is a goofy charm. On the flip-side, a social flower can use them to be disarming to the recipient; to show that they need not be placed out of the recipient's league because of their looks/confidence. Finger guns are the great equalizer and can make any (non-serious) situation easier to swallow for both parties.
If a person does not appreciate receiving finger guns then that's a good thing too, since they are probably not very fun and you dont want to deal with them anyways.
Lastly, finger guns are not ambivalent. If you give someone the guns, they know you want to talk with them and are approving of who they are. note: if you try to flirt with a murderer who used guns to do the deed, they may think you are teasing them. but I think that is a rare enough occurrence that you shouldn't be dissuaded.
| 1,485,553,149 | Fenzito | dd05qnx | dd03j5w | 13 | 10 |
CMV: Bans on reddit are given way to easily
You can get banned from certain subreddits way too easily.
Mods don't like your username. [Banned!](https://i.imgur.com/gUpbX5H.png)
But what I find most disturbing is that you can get banned from just disagreeing! Thats the internet-equivalent of killing people to silence them.
Bans should be given only because of extreme trolling, **NOT** just because of disagreeing with agendas. If you discuss politics on your subreddit, **ALL VIEWPPOINT AND OPINIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE EXPRESSED IF MENTIONED IN A KIND WAY!**
Let the voting system do it's job! You can't ban people just for expressing their opinion!
What would happen if everyone would act like this in reallife? Democracy and politics would be impossible.
My ideas:
* Only bans for extreme trolling or similar behaviour
* Users can appeal bans
* Mods have to prove a user broke rules
What I'm saying is: You can't ban certain viewpoint is political discussion in a democracy.
My fear is that both sides of the political spectrum just sit entrenched in front of each other masturbating themselves in their echochambers. | Gotta ask: What's creepy about your username? I don't get it.
As for changing your view, my problem with hard and fast rules is that you sometimes get some jerk who knows how to technically remain in compliance while still saying rude things and harming the quality of the discussion. In some leftist forums where I've previously browsed on an old account, you could get away with saying some messed up shit as long as you avoided using various slurs that tripped their SJ alarm bells. To me, that reflects a poor ability to adapt to trolls who it turns out can be quite creative.
For this reason, I generally favor more moderator discretion + transparency to the community as a whole. It seems that abuse of power by one mod can be prevented by having multiple different mods and/or having the option for people to split off into new subreddits.
| > What would happen if everyone would act like this in reallife? Democracy and politics would be impossible.
Your mistake is equating reddit to a public forum. Reddit is not subject to free speech laws for good reason: **it is a privately owned platform**.
I can kick pro-lifers out of my restaurant if I want. | 5qmnb2 | CMV: Bans on reddit are given way to easily | You can get banned from certain subreddits way too easily.
Mods don't like your username. [Banned!](https://i.imgur.com/gUpbX5H.png)
But what I find most disturbing is that you can get banned from just disagreeing! Thats the internet-equivalent of killing people to silence them.
Bans should be given only because of extreme trolling, **NOT** just because of disagreeing with agendas. If you discuss politics on your subreddit, **ALL VIEWPPOINT AND OPINIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE EXPRESSED IF MENTIONED IN A KIND WAY!**
Let the voting system do it's job! You can't ban people just for expressing their opinion!
What would happen if everyone would act like this in reallife? Democracy and politics would be impossible.
My ideas:
* Only bans for extreme trolling or similar behaviour
* Users can appeal bans
* Mods have to prove a user broke rules
What I'm saying is: You can't ban certain viewpoint is political discussion in a democracy.
My fear is that both sides of the political spectrum just sit entrenched in front of each other masturbating themselves in their echochambers. | 1,485,591,550 | HironTheDisscusser | dd0h1ch | dd0h0tx | 8 | 6 |
CMV: Hufflepuff is objectively the worst house and it is kind of an insult to be sorted into it.
So my friend said they were sorted into Hufflepuff on Pottermore and my other friend said, "yeah, I can see that." It felt like an insult to me...like: "you're not very smart but you're not particularly ambitious either to make up for it. And to top it off, you're not even brave. You're just kind of...there."
When I double-checked the traits of Hufflepuff, it came up "hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play." Fair play isn't even really a character trait, it's an ideal or a sense of morality. "Hard work and dedication" seem like a lesser version of Slytherin's "ambition." Loyalty is okay I guess but loyalty doesn't pay the bills or demand the same kind of respect as the traits of the other houses.
I feel like I may not be appreciating this house correctly and I mean no disrespect to any Hufflepuffs so please change my view.
Edit: Thanks so much for all of your responses! Sorry I couldn't respond to them all but you've all given me great points. I find myself actually wanting to be more like Hufflepuffs now.
| All the other houses are goobers, think about it.
Slytherin is basically like /r/The_Donald , /r/atheism or some other hive of fedora tippers trying to be edgy and falling for spooks like "muh pure-bloods", they waste their time on memes and delusions of grandeur.
Gryffindor want to be holier than thou heroes but they supposedly accomplish this by not thinking anything through and making things worse.
Ravenclaw are selected at age 11 long before you know how the students will turn out. They may get slightly better grades than the hard working Hufflepuff but it is mostly rote learning useless things just to look smart on paper, not a well rounded set of skills. Ravenclaw will memorize 300 potion recipes while Hufflepuff will get hands on experience making them.
Hufflepuff actually get things done, they get money, they get up to speed with their studies and coursework, they won't let a bro down, they will keep the apartments clean so you don't have to worry about "crusty" socks left on the floor or pee smell in the bathroom, you will get the most restful sleeps you have ever had while snuggling up to some gryffindor girl tired of the losers in her house, you will basically have a much better time there and focus on what really matters.
Now, you might think house points and nonsense like this is the most important thing in the world, but do you remember which house had the most points last year or the year before that? Which house defeated a troll a decade ago or won Quidditch? The other houses might look prestigious to begin with but you won't regret being in Hufflepuff once you realize you are spending 7 years there. | [I think this sums it up pretty well.](https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/reasons-everyone-should-want-to-be-a-hufflepuff?utm_term=.stmGDB41v#.dqGX5vKln)
As JK Rowing said, "I think we should all want to be Hufflepuffs." | 5qo4u5 | CMV: Hufflepuff is objectively the worst house and it is kind of an insult to be sorted into it. | So my friend said they were sorted into Hufflepuff on Pottermore and my other friend said, "yeah, I can see that." It felt like an insult to me...like: "you're not very smart but you're not particularly ambitious either to make up for it. And to top it off, you're not even brave. You're just kind of...there."
When I double-checked the traits of Hufflepuff, it came up "hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play." Fair play isn't even really a character trait, it's an ideal or a sense of morality. "Hard work and dedication" seem like a lesser version of Slytherin's "ambition." Loyalty is okay I guess but loyalty doesn't pay the bills or demand the same kind of respect as the traits of the other houses.
I feel like I may not be appreciating this house correctly and I mean no disrespect to any Hufflepuffs so please change my view.
Edit: Thanks so much for all of your responses! Sorry I couldn't respond to them all but you've all given me great points. I find myself actually wanting to be more like Hufflepuffs now.
| 1,485,618,135 | ComposerShield | dd0rh0m | dd0rawf | 113 | 26 |
CMV: The Billable Hours System is Overall Bad for the Practice of Law
Most attorneys charge for their cases based on billable hours. From the client's perspective, they know that they are being charged based on how much time the lawyer spends on the case. This may sometimes deter the client from calling the lawyer and asking questions, for better and for worse.
But I'm focused more on the lawyer perspective than the client perspective. Most associate lawyers (aka guys who work at the firm but don't own it) have a minimum number of billable hours they have to hit to keep their job.
Of course, time spent working doesn't always correlate directly to billable hours. I might have a form contract that took me 2 hours to make, but that I can reuse for each case, and charge 1 hour of billable work for the 5 minutes it took me to change the names on the form. On the flip side, I might have to spend an extra half hour looking through the case folder for a document, but can't charge at all for that half hour because it's not "billable work."
I think this incentives attorneys to spend their time in ways that are not always most productive to doing good legal work. As a lawyer, I am essentially incentivized to do no more work on a case than I can bill for, even if that case might benefit from an extra 2 hours of research. I am at the same time incentivized to sometimes do extra work on another case that is "riper" for billable hours.
On top of all that, my boss is largely assessing my performance based on how much busy work I complete, instead of how well I do the work.
I concede that it's hard to think of a better system. If you come to me with a large employment dispute, I can't know how much work that will entail. If I charge a flat fee, and the case ends up entailing much more work than other cases that I get a similar fee for, I as a lawyer got ripped off. Conversely if it's way less work, the client is ripped off. Billable hours does ensure the billing is theoretically proportionate to the work done.
However, I think most lawyers can decently estimate the cost/value of a case before they take it on. A switch to a universal flat fee system would require the lawyer and client to do more vetting to determine price before taking a case, but I think that would be a positive exchange to eliminate all the pitfalls of the billable system. | >At most that's .1 hour of work, anything more than that is fraud (and the kind of fraud the bar takes seriously and will actually discipline you for).
There certainly can be provisions to allow this sort of billing in the retainer contract.
> How do I get a client to come back? I don't charge him for the 3 minute phone call -
This whole section is nice, but it doesn't really change my view because many practices don't work that way. Let's say I work at a firm that relies on 4-5 clients that are large businesses that reliably feed cases to my firm. Like I said, I will sometimes underbill because they don't want to see a bill of 10 hours of research on a matter that isn't worth very much to them, but none of that really changes the fact that I am being assessed by my boss primarily based on the number of hours spent doing work, not on the quality of my work.
My concern isn't really based on the client being screwed, but on the associate being pulled in many directions. The associate might spend that extra hour on research, and not bill for it because the partner says the client won't want an inflated bill and so on about client relations. But instead of just being told "good job doing that extra work," the associate will be told "now go make up that time you spent doing non-billable work by doing something that will help you meet your hours." This seems unnecessary to me. | But man if I say that we can do the case for a flat fee of 20,000, but my billable hours would have been 500 an hour what would stop the client from getting a lot more than 40 "hours" of work by calling me all the time.
By setting a flat fee I open myself up to client dominating my time because they fell that they can own me. | 5qo7kc | CMV: The Billable Hours System is Overall Bad for the Practice of Law | Most attorneys charge for their cases based on billable hours. From the client's perspective, they know that they are being charged based on how much time the lawyer spends on the case. This may sometimes deter the client from calling the lawyer and asking questions, for better and for worse.
But I'm focused more on the lawyer perspective than the client perspective. Most associate lawyers (aka guys who work at the firm but don't own it) have a minimum number of billable hours they have to hit to keep their job.
Of course, time spent working doesn't always correlate directly to billable hours. I might have a form contract that took me 2 hours to make, but that I can reuse for each case, and charge 1 hour of billable work for the 5 minutes it took me to change the names on the form. On the flip side, I might have to spend an extra half hour looking through the case folder for a document, but can't charge at all for that half hour because it's not "billable work."
I think this incentives attorneys to spend their time in ways that are not always most productive to doing good legal work. As a lawyer, I am essentially incentivized to do no more work on a case than I can bill for, even if that case might benefit from an extra 2 hours of research. I am at the same time incentivized to sometimes do extra work on another case that is "riper" for billable hours.
On top of all that, my boss is largely assessing my performance based on how much busy work I complete, instead of how well I do the work.
I concede that it's hard to think of a better system. If you come to me with a large employment dispute, I can't know how much work that will entail. If I charge a flat fee, and the case ends up entailing much more work than other cases that I get a similar fee for, I as a lawyer got ripped off. Conversely if it's way less work, the client is ripped off. Billable hours does ensure the billing is theoretically proportionate to the work done.
However, I think most lawyers can decently estimate the cost/value of a case before they take it on. A switch to a universal flat fee system would require the lawyer and client to do more vetting to determine price before taking a case, but I think that would be a positive exchange to eliminate all the pitfalls of the billable system. | 1,485,619,046 | BAWguy | dd0s8ge | dd0rf6q | 5 | 3 |
CMV: 5-string bass is superior to the conventional 4-string in every meaningful way
I've played music for many years. My primary instrument is bass guitar, which most commonly has four strings: low E, A, D, and G. Although I frequently play four-string basses, I have a strong preference for the less common five string: most commonly strung low-B, E, A, D, G. Even though it seems like purists and many great bassists prefer the 4-string, I will argue here that the 5-string is superior in nearly every meaningful way. My reasoning for this is drawn from three observations:
1. **Greater musical range**: This might be the most obvious advantage, giving you that extra flexibility for walking bass lines in E (a very common key for jazz and blues) or when you want that extra punch on a song in D, but don't want to go through the hassle of tuning in drop-D (i.e. Killing in the Name, Fat Bottom Girls, Kashmir). If you're inclined, you can also shift the strings down and add a high C on the fifth string, which can also be adopted for [music in higher keys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZNKLUHeJtg).
2. **Convenient Thumb Rest**: Many bassists opt for a finger picking style that mainly relies on the upward motion of the index and middle finger. The thumb is rarely used in this style, meaning it generally rests on the string above the one being played or free-floating. The low-B string is a convenient place to rest the thumb, preventing the needless energy expenditure while also giving you much needed leverage for the upward-pulling motion of the other fingers.
3. **Strings are closer together**: This makes it easier for your left hand to move across strings and facilitates a cleaner sound when playing chords. It also makes the bass more analogous to guitar, permitting ready transfer of skill sets.
| If this is your thing - it's much harder to slap on a 5 string - the strings are closer together, and there's more of them.
Yeah, you can do it if you put in the extra time and practice, but if I were a bassist that ONLY played this style (Kill me if I do become that person), I'd purchase only 4-strings.
Also, your selection of the actual instrument is limited when adding strings.
Edit: Gold! Wow! Ok! | I don't think there's any right or wrong when it comes to getting those sounds- whatever works. Again, this is second-hand, just based on conversation with my (very talented) bassist. For him, the spacing of a 4-string is better for incorporating popping with the index and then quickly switching back to normal attack with the same finger (think "Josie" by Steely Dan). He also prefers 4 over 5 string for a tune like "Grapevine"- fast, digging in hard, and played almost entirely with the index. Not sure why the extra spacing works better for that song but it may have to do with the wider amount of "play" the strings have when digging in really hard. YMMV! | 5qomnr | CMV: 5-string bass is superior to the conventional 4-string in every meaningful way | I've played music for many years. My primary instrument is bass guitar, which most commonly has four strings: low E, A, D, and G. Although I frequently play four-string basses, I have a strong preference for the less common five string: most commonly strung low-B, E, A, D, G. Even though it seems like purists and many great bassists prefer the 4-string, I will argue here that the 5-string is superior in nearly every meaningful way. My reasoning for this is drawn from three observations:
1. **Greater musical range**: This might be the most obvious advantage, giving you that extra flexibility for walking bass lines in E (a very common key for jazz and blues) or when you want that extra punch on a song in D, but don't want to go through the hassle of tuning in drop-D (i.e. Killing in the Name, Fat Bottom Girls, Kashmir). If you're inclined, you can also shift the strings down and add a high C on the fifth string, which can also be adopted for [music in higher keys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZNKLUHeJtg).
2. **Convenient Thumb Rest**: Many bassists opt for a finger picking style that mainly relies on the upward motion of the index and middle finger. The thumb is rarely used in this style, meaning it generally rests on the string above the one being played or free-floating. The low-B string is a convenient place to rest the thumb, preventing the needless energy expenditure while also giving you much needed leverage for the upward-pulling motion of the other fingers.
3. **Strings are closer together**: This makes it easier for your left hand to move across strings and facilitates a cleaner sound when playing chords. It also makes the bass more analogous to guitar, permitting ready transfer of skill sets.
| 1,485,623,842 | Feldman742 | dd13t3q | dd10l19 | 4 | 2 |
CMV: The most important reform we can fight for in America is replacing our flawed single-choice ballots with a superior method of voting.
The 2016 Presidential Election (regardless of the result) is a great example that we can all relate to, but is certainly not the only one. Both major candidates had ~60% *disapproval* ratings leading up to the election, but ~97% of us voted for one or the other. That fact alone should be a wake up call, but we've gotten so used to this that we think it's just "how it is, and how it has to be."
It doesn't have to be like this. Allowing people to only vote for one candidate means that the system tends to gravitate towards two major parties, and the only correct strategy for a voter is to pick one of them to vote for. Under other voting methods, this is not the case, and we as voters could more accurately transcribe our feelings towards multiple candidates onto the ballot. More than two candidates would be able to be taken seriously. The two major parties and their agendas would not be the two "evils" we have to choose the "lesser" of.
This is not just about Presidential elections. It goes for every election. By using a system that doesn't penalize non-two-party candidates for running, the voters get more choice, and we are more likely to elect leaders that best satisfy the overall electorate.
Because of the two-party dominance that is inherent in the single-choice ballot, we end up flip-flopping between extremes. Extreme Left President for 4-8 years, then Extreme Right President for 4-8 years. This makes progress impossible, because each president tries to undo what the last one did, and completely U-turn the country. It also makes us unreliable to the rest of the world because everyone knows that we'll just flip-flop again in a few years when the next election takes place.
Why this is the most important reform:
Any other issue is subservient to this issue, because we rely on our elected leaders to represent us, but we are using a fundamentally flawed election system to elect those leaders. We need to be able to elect the leaders that actually represent the will of the people, and THEN by electing better leaders we'll be able to fix the problems.
Specific reforms:
- We should replace the single-choice ballot with Approval Voting, which is exactly the same as what we have now except that you can vote for more than one. This allows all candidates to get an honest showing of how many people want to vote for them, instead of now, where we have to "betray" our favorite candidate (or not even bother looking at any of the other cadidates!) because of the restriction that we can only vote for one. Lots more information is available on this: http://electology.org/approval-voting
- We should replace the "winner-takes-all" elections for congresspeople with a Porportional Representation system like STV (Single Transferrable Vote). Instead of one candidate getting the most votes in a gerrymandered district, we'd get a proportional amount of votes from a larger district, and assign the seats to congress in proportion with the number of people who like a particular candidate/ideology/party. We already try to do this by having representatives from each state, but because of the flaws discussed above, many people are forced to vote strategically for candidates they don't really like, and the plurality of the voters in a district override the rest.
- Voting should be mandatory, just like doing your taxes. You don't have to actually fill in any bubbles if you don't want to, but you MUST submit a ballot. This results in more people taking part in the democracy, and it removes a critical strategy currently in place: right now one primary ways to make sure you win is to "mobilize your base" by appealing to their emotions. Whoever gets the biggest turnout by making the biggest emotional impact (usually fear/anger against the "status quo") wins the election. So, it's not so much that you were preferred by the most people, it's that you motivated your small group of people more than the other person motivated their small group of people. We want to elect the candidates that are best for ALL Americans, not just the angry ones.
CMV: Fixing our elections is the most important reform we can fight for, because all else follows. If we want a better democracy, let's fix the broken parts of our democracy -- and our elections are most certainly broken. (Note: This has nothing to do with whether Trump won or not. This has been a problem since the founding of our country, it's just that now we know better. Nader potentially spoiled the 2000 election, Lincoln won be cause of a "spoiler" candidate. This is about improving the democracy, not trying to undo the 2016 Presidential Election).
--------
> There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
> - John Adams, 1780
> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
> - George Washington, 1796 | > Because of the two-party dominance that is inherent in the single-choice ballot, we end up flip-flopping between extremes
Actually, two-party systems are a moderating force. The way their math works, means that both candidates have to appeal to the median voter.
In a party list proportional system, the parliament gets filled with 8-10 parties each having 20% to 5% of the popular vote, a few of which have to form a coalition.
This means:
1. *A push for radicalization*: When you lead a 5% party, you have a viable political career out of you by continuing to rile up that 5% fringe of the country, and hope for a seat at the next government coalition. The other parties do the same. No one ever has to reach out to the undecided everyman, Joe Sixpack, the representation of the average voter, just to their own wingnuts.
2. *An instability of government*: When 3-4 of these wingnut parties begrudgingly form a coalition government for the sake of power, nothing stops them from waiting for the first conflict to break rank, strike a rebellious pose for their own voters, and let the government they were part of fall apart, while they themselves rise from 5% approval to 6%. Cue to early elections, temporary governments, legal uncertainty. In a two party system, at least someone clearly wins mandate for the next cycle, and the other one loses.
3. *Empowering party leaders over voter blocks*: In a party proportional system, coalitions are built after the elections, bartered in smoke-filled rooms, with party leaders giving up policy promises for cabinet seats, fundings, and so on. As an end result, you get a chimera government that *nobody voted for*. When a 20% party, two 15% parties, and an 5% party form a coalition, they will end up with a compromise policy between themselves that wasn't shaped by the electorate, but by a handful of leaders' negotiating skills, corruptibility, and willingness for power plays with gridlock threats. In the US, you complain that the results don't *satisfy the overall electorate.*, but at least they were still *shaped by the electorate*. They might have voted for the "lesser of two evils", but they had the power to *decide which is which* for themselves. You see events like the Southern Strategy, where the entire party map flips as southern whites realigned their interests to the Republicans. Similarly, nothing stops gun owners, Protestants, white working classes, etc, from organically making their case to the Democratic big tent, and migrating over. In a many party system you get to feel really proud voting for the single-issue party that perfectly represents your priotities, then they sell ththat very issue down the river for personal access to the President. | I would like this style of voting to be implemented, but I wish for the electoral college to remain intact with the current style of voting; just because the United States is a republic of states, not a direct democracy. Change in government should be small and slow.
"Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never. " John Adams :) | 5qpfhz | CMV: The most important reform we can fight for in America is replacing our flawed single-choice ballots with a superior method of voting. | The 2016 Presidential Election (regardless of the result) is a great example that we can all relate to, but is certainly not the only one. Both major candidates had ~60% *disapproval* ratings leading up to the election, but ~97% of us voted for one or the other. That fact alone should be a wake up call, but we've gotten so used to this that we think it's just "how it is, and how it has to be."
It doesn't have to be like this. Allowing people to only vote for one candidate means that the system tends to gravitate towards two major parties, and the only correct strategy for a voter is to pick one of them to vote for. Under other voting methods, this is not the case, and we as voters could more accurately transcribe our feelings towards multiple candidates onto the ballot. More than two candidates would be able to be taken seriously. The two major parties and their agendas would not be the two "evils" we have to choose the "lesser" of.
This is not just about Presidential elections. It goes for every election. By using a system that doesn't penalize non-two-party candidates for running, the voters get more choice, and we are more likely to elect leaders that best satisfy the overall electorate.
Because of the two-party dominance that is inherent in the single-choice ballot, we end up flip-flopping between extremes. Extreme Left President for 4-8 years, then Extreme Right President for 4-8 years. This makes progress impossible, because each president tries to undo what the last one did, and completely U-turn the country. It also makes us unreliable to the rest of the world because everyone knows that we'll just flip-flop again in a few years when the next election takes place.
Why this is the most important reform:
Any other issue is subservient to this issue, because we rely on our elected leaders to represent us, but we are using a fundamentally flawed election system to elect those leaders. We need to be able to elect the leaders that actually represent the will of the people, and THEN by electing better leaders we'll be able to fix the problems.
Specific reforms:
- We should replace the single-choice ballot with Approval Voting, which is exactly the same as what we have now except that you can vote for more than one. This allows all candidates to get an honest showing of how many people want to vote for them, instead of now, where we have to "betray" our favorite candidate (or not even bother looking at any of the other cadidates!) because of the restriction that we can only vote for one. Lots more information is available on this: http://electology.org/approval-voting
- We should replace the "winner-takes-all" elections for congresspeople with a Porportional Representation system like STV (Single Transferrable Vote). Instead of one candidate getting the most votes in a gerrymandered district, we'd get a proportional amount of votes from a larger district, and assign the seats to congress in proportion with the number of people who like a particular candidate/ideology/party. We already try to do this by having representatives from each state, but because of the flaws discussed above, many people are forced to vote strategically for candidates they don't really like, and the plurality of the voters in a district override the rest.
- Voting should be mandatory, just like doing your taxes. You don't have to actually fill in any bubbles if you don't want to, but you MUST submit a ballot. This results in more people taking part in the democracy, and it removes a critical strategy currently in place: right now one primary ways to make sure you win is to "mobilize your base" by appealing to their emotions. Whoever gets the biggest turnout by making the biggest emotional impact (usually fear/anger against the "status quo") wins the election. So, it's not so much that you were preferred by the most people, it's that you motivated your small group of people more than the other person motivated their small group of people. We want to elect the candidates that are best for ALL Americans, not just the angry ones.
CMV: Fixing our elections is the most important reform we can fight for, because all else follows. If we want a better democracy, let's fix the broken parts of our democracy -- and our elections are most certainly broken. (Note: This has nothing to do with whether Trump won or not. This has been a problem since the founding of our country, it's just that now we know better. Nader potentially spoiled the 2000 election, Lincoln won be cause of a "spoiler" candidate. This is about improving the democracy, not trying to undo the 2016 Presidential Election).
--------
> There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
> - John Adams, 1780
> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
> - George Washington, 1796 | 1,485,632,426 | sou-ght | dd1cycf | dd13w96 | 13 | 1 |
CMV: People of African descent have inherently lower IQ.
I just had a long debate with my friend about this, and I came in with the thought that blacks and whites were genetically similar, but all the evidence seems to say otherwise. For example, African countries have horrible average IQs, and normally I would explain that with the fact that they're way less developed than the rest of the world. However, we can take a look at countries with similar or worse human development and see much better IQs, even Afghanistan has 84, which is much higher than the average African IQ. The southeast Asian countries would be another example of this, having similar HDI ratings, but much higher IQs.
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
The most damning evidence that really changed my mind was that according to a study by Minnesota university, black children adopted by white parents STILL have lower IQs than white kids adopted by white parents. Even worse is that children with one black parent, but adopted by two white parents have a higher IQ than children with two black parents, but less than children with two white parents.
wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
It's really hard for me to believe that blacks have inherently lower IQs, and I really don't want to accept it. Plus the implications it has for society are huge, so I would really appreciate it if you guys could change my view.
| > I came in with the thought that blacks and whites were genetically similar, but all the evidence seems to say otherwise.
Actually no, if you actually map the genes. The differences compared to other animals are almost non-existent. If we were dogs, we would all be the same breed. That is how little actual difference there is.
Even amongst humans, for example homo habilis (earlier evolution of modern human). Were incredibly genetically different. ranging from being 1 meter tall, to almost 3 meters and that was on average. Not just freak accidents that are bound to happen. The cranium of fossils suggest that the intelligence and cognitive abilities (such as spacial awareness, or sensory inputs) were also drastically different. You could almost say the 2 homo habilis were as far from together genetically as is modern human from chimpanzee. (which also in the grand scheme of things isn't very much, a chromosome and few strands of code here and there). And indeed this trend of vast genetic difference (compared to us) is quite normal in the animal kingdom.
What are the difference of humans? Being a half of head higher/lower on average? Half a milimeter of cranium difference? 1.3% of average muscle density? A sking pigmentation, a slight curvature of the eyes?
It's nothing. We are virtually identical if that is the order of magnitude. To suggest that in those barely measurable differences hides a significant inteligence boost or handicap is laughable.
I won't comment on the IQ tests, and such. Those can all be explained as a problem of education, civilization, poverty, economic instability, racism, problems with institutionalized testings at many places on the planet etc.. by someone far more knowledgable and eloquent than me. I'm just commenting about how this claim has no basis in biology. | poor nutrition and education. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that environment has no effect on IQ, that would be ridiculous. the question at hand here is "Is the observed IQ difference between blacks and whites purely environmental or is there a genetic component?"
Merely observing that environment has an effect on IQ does not come close to answering that question. | 5qpgkb | CMV: People of African descent have inherently lower IQ. | I just had a long debate with my friend about this, and I came in with the thought that blacks and whites were genetically similar, but all the evidence seems to say otherwise. For example, African countries have horrible average IQs, and normally I would explain that with the fact that they're way less developed than the rest of the world. However, we can take a look at countries with similar or worse human development and see much better IQs, even Afghanistan has 84, which is much higher than the average African IQ. The southeast Asian countries would be another example of this, having similar HDI ratings, but much higher IQs.
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
The most damning evidence that really changed my mind was that according to a study by Minnesota university, black children adopted by white parents STILL have lower IQs than white kids adopted by white parents. Even worse is that children with one black parent, but adopted by two white parents have a higher IQ than children with two black parents, but less than children with two white parents.
wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
It's really hard for me to believe that blacks have inherently lower IQs, and I really don't want to accept it. Plus the implications it has for society are huge, so I would really appreciate it if you guys could change my view.
| 1,485,632,762 | X88B88bewbs | dd13o5w | dd12l25 | 1 | 0 |
CMV: you’re an idiot for saying “but Hillary won the popular vote!”
A lot of butt-hurt people keep spouting, “Hillary won the popular vote!” as if it should be meaningful. I posit that given the existence of the Electoral College (E.C.), this “factoid” is meaningless and repeating it only shows their ignorance of how institutions influence the behavior of people. Given the rules that everyone knew on November 8th, the popular vote result has literally zero meaning that can be attributed to the will of the people.
(FWIW, my candidate lost both the E.C. and the popular vote.)
- In the E.C. system, people in “guaranteed states” tend not to vote. For example in California a lot of Republicans might tend to stay home because it’s impossible for a Republican to take the state. In Michigan, a lot of Democrats stayed home because it was supposed to be an easy victory for Hillary (she lost, surprisingly).
- Thus the actual voter turnout is influenced by the existence of the E.C.
- Parties tend to spend their money in states that are closer to swinging, and ignore states such as California and pay less attention to states such as Michigan than they otherwise would. If we had a popular vote system, candidates’ parties would have to spend money more evenly, possibly resulting in different voter turnout.
- If we had a popular vote system, the entire dynamics of who votes and who doesn’t vote would be different. **Thus the current popular vote statics** aren’t even worth a hill of beans.
Significant points about this opinion:
- I’ve **not** said one way or another that the popular vote would have changed the outcome.
- Maybe Hillary would have won under different rules, maybe not.
- I maintain that the popular vote would have been much different, though, and that voter turnout would have been higher.
So, CMV: you’re an idiot for spouting out “but Hillary won the popular vote!”
**Edit:** This has been fun. Although I've awarded a delta on a technicality, my real view hasn't quite been changed. It's time for bed in E.S.T., but I'll continue to monitor tomorrow. Thanks for all of your differing opinions, and thanks for your well-reasoned arguments.
| Every time it gets mentioned, it upsets Trump. For anyone anti-Trump, it is an effective way to exploit his insecurities. | A system which elects the loser is not effective. Period. | 5qqffe | CMV: you’re an idiot for saying “but Hillary won the popular vote!” | A lot of butt-hurt people keep spouting, “Hillary won the popular vote!” as if it should be meaningful. I posit that given the existence of the Electoral College (E.C.), this “factoid” is meaningless and repeating it only shows their ignorance of how institutions influence the behavior of people. Given the rules that everyone knew on November 8th, the popular vote result has literally zero meaning that can be attributed to the will of the people.
(FWIW, my candidate lost both the E.C. and the popular vote.)
- In the E.C. system, people in “guaranteed states” tend not to vote. For example in California a lot of Republicans might tend to stay home because it’s impossible for a Republican to take the state. In Michigan, a lot of Democrats stayed home because it was supposed to be an easy victory for Hillary (she lost, surprisingly).
- Thus the actual voter turnout is influenced by the existence of the E.C.
- Parties tend to spend their money in states that are closer to swinging, and ignore states such as California and pay less attention to states such as Michigan than they otherwise would. If we had a popular vote system, candidates’ parties would have to spend money more evenly, possibly resulting in different voter turnout.
- If we had a popular vote system, the entire dynamics of who votes and who doesn’t vote would be different. **Thus the current popular vote statics** aren’t even worth a hill of beans.
Significant points about this opinion:
- I’ve **not** said one way or another that the popular vote would have changed the outcome.
- Maybe Hillary would have won under different rules, maybe not.
- I maintain that the popular vote would have been much different, though, and that voter turnout would have been higher.
So, CMV: you’re an idiot for spouting out “but Hillary won the popular vote!”
**Edit:** This has been fun. Although I've awarded a delta on a technicality, my real view hasn't quite been changed. It's time for bed in E.S.T., but I'll continue to monitor tomorrow. Thanks for all of your differing opinions, and thanks for your well-reasoned arguments.
| 1,485,643,563 | balthisar | dd18qhh | dd18l6k | 23 | 4 |
CMV: Since WWII, the primary reason for US military intervention has always been for the benefit of the corporations controlled by the wealthiest Americans, not to fight "bad guys," protect anyone's rights, or spread democracy.
The United States does not use military action in foreign countries to protect your freedom. Your freedom is not being threatened by developing countries on the other side of the globe. Neither does it exist to spread democracy. (Why did we "spread democracy to Iraq, while ignoring some many other brutal dictatorships?) Since WWII, US military intervention has always been for the benefit of the corporations controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Here are some of the links that have convinced me of this:
* [War Made Easy - How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9DjSg6l9Vs)
* [A Timeline of CIA Atrocities](http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html)
* [Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War](https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list)
* [How the CIA Created a Ruling, Corporate Overclass in America](http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-cia-created-ruling-corporate.html)
* [Wikiepdia: Project Mockignbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)
* [Wikipedia: CIA influence on public opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion)
* [The story of the time the United States destroyed the government of Guatemala for the benefit of single fruit company.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-7xfBrjSA0)
* [The United States sold the weapons used to commit gennocide in East Timor](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401688.html)
* [Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil](http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/)
* [The Real Reason for the Iraq War](https://www.vice.com/en_dk/article/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast)
* [“The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769)
* [The REAL Reason Nearly EVERYONE Is In Syria](http://anonhq.com/real-reason-theres-conflict-syria/) | >“The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas
Let's take this one, because it's one of the more absurd ones on your list. First, when it comes to natural gas, the US already has literally [more than](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303812904577295873283143892) it know what to do with. AS for mineral wealth, that's an even more absurd assertion. the USGS discovered about a trillion dollars worth of mineral deposits in afghanistan. Let's ignore the fact that these resources were only discovered YEARS after the invasion was started. Let's also ignore for now the fact that the afghan constitution we wrote makes it illegal for any US company to own those resources, let's just focus on the fact that we care so little about them that we let the [taliban conquer mining areas.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/taliban-winning-race-to-capture-1-trillion-afghan-mining-riches), which, in any case, amount to a tiny amount of money, most of which is spent by the chinese. If the US is invading afghanistan for cobalt, it's utterly ineptly. | >While i largely agree with you, the us needed a massive military to fight these wars, and to get a massive military you need weapons, and who do we get the weapons from. Massive corporations such as Lockhead and Raytheon.
OP's argument is that these wars were *always* fought for the benefit of the corporations. Some companies benefit through conflict, others do not. Just because companies like Lockhead do benefit from conflict doesn't mean the conflict itself is waged for "the benefit of the corporations controlled by the wealthiest Americans". | 5qqzp3 | CMV: Since WWII, the primary reason for US military intervention has always been for the benefit of the corporations controlled by the wealthiest Americans, not to fight "bad guys," protect anyone's rights, or spread democracy. | The United States does not use military action in foreign countries to protect your freedom. Your freedom is not being threatened by developing countries on the other side of the globe. Neither does it exist to spread democracy. (Why did we "spread democracy to Iraq, while ignoring some many other brutal dictatorships?) Since WWII, US military intervention has always been for the benefit of the corporations controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Here are some of the links that have convinced me of this:
* [War Made Easy - How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9DjSg6l9Vs)
* [A Timeline of CIA Atrocities](http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html)
* [Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War](https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list)
* [How the CIA Created a Ruling, Corporate Overclass in America](http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-cia-created-ruling-corporate.html)
* [Wikiepdia: Project Mockignbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)
* [Wikipedia: CIA influence on public opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion)
* [The story of the time the United States destroyed the government of Guatemala for the benefit of single fruit company.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-7xfBrjSA0)
* [The United States sold the weapons used to commit gennocide in East Timor](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401688.html)
* [Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil](http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/)
* [The Real Reason for the Iraq War](https://www.vice.com/en_dk/article/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast)
* [“The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769)
* [The REAL Reason Nearly EVERYONE Is In Syria](http://anonhq.com/real-reason-theres-conflict-syria/) | 1,485,650,337 | SingularityIsNigh | dd1kaqq | dd1jz86 | 22 | 1 |
CMV: Civilian gun ownership should be banned.
For clarification,
* Scope of this CMV is USA. ***EDIT:*** *Areas that have a significant dangerous wildlife problem will be excluded from the ban's scope (eg. gun use would be permitted in such areas only).*
* Tasers, water guns, paintball guns, BB guns, fake guns, are not considered 'guns' for the purpose of this CMV.
* Military, police, and security guards with special permits are excluded from the ban scope. The special permits will primarily be restricted to government security guards.
* Owning guns and bullets will be illegal. Purchase and sale of guns and bullets will be illegal. Use of guns and bullets will be illegal.
* After passage of the ban, there will be a one week grace period by which time all owned guns may be turned over to police stations. There shall be no compensation for turning over the guns.
* Government will not be actively searching for guns, however will act on credible claims of gun possession. Anyone found in possession of, and/or trying to buy/sell, a gun, or bullets used in guns, after the grace period has expired will be ***EDIT:*** *severely fined and imprisoned (depending on how much/what kind of guns and ammo in question; for example, punishment for a typical handgun may be some % of ability to pay + 5 years in prison).*
Reasons:
* Extensive number of deaths yearly from guns, many of which could be prevented.
* Criminal gun use will be curtailed as their access to them will be reduced.
Replies to expected counterarguments:
* **Self-protection** - Based on what I've read and heard, gun owners by and large will not be in a position to effectively use it for self defense.
* **Other ways of killing** - Based on what I've read and heard, it's far easier to kill (oneself and others, intentionally or accidentally) using a gun than with other means.
* **Militia** - ~~Guns aren't going to stop the military.~~ If this were ever to become an issue, the outcome will be the same, only there will be a lot of dead civilians due to their owning guns. ***EDIT:*** *For those of you who make the argument that we need armed civilians in case the military goes rogue, can you explain why this doesn't seem to be a concern for all the nations that restrict/forbid gun ownership?*
* **Criminals will still own guns** - Yes, but restricting ownership and trade of guns and bullets will make it harder for them to be supplied with such weapons, and the police will still have guns.
* **People paid for those guns** - yes, and people paid for other things that are made illegal. Doesn't mean we don't make those other things illegal.
* **People want to own guns** - Yes, and people want to do many things which are dangerous, like not wear seat belts. Doesn't mean we allow people to not use seat belts.
* **Dangerous to take guns away from gun owners** - Yes, and it's also dangerous to fight criminals. Doesn't mean we don't fight criminals.
* **Framing by planting guns** - Yes, and people can frame others for other crimes as well. Doesn't mean we don't have criminal law.
* **Gun manufacturers will suffer** - Yes, and most regulations will make some corporation or other to suffer. Doesn't mean we don't have regulations.
Arguments which won't change my view as they (IMO) are irrelevant:
* **Political impracticality** - the CMV isn't saying "we should pass the law at this particular time", but rather "it would be better for the law to have been passed than not".
* **2nd amendment** - the CMV is also saying "second amendment should be overturned".
--
Edits:
***EDIT:*** *Areas that have a significant dangerous wildlife problem will be excluded from the ban's scope (eg. gun use would be permitted in such areas only).*
***EDIT:*** ~~Guns aren't going to stop the military.~~ *For those of you who make the argument that we need armed civilians in case the military goes rogue, can you explain why this doesn't seem to be a concern for all the nations that restrict/forbid gun ownership?*
***EDIT:*** *severely fined and imprisoned (depending on how much/what kind of guns and ammo in question; for example, punishment for a typical handgun may be some % of ability to pay + 5 years in prison).*
| - Militia - Guns aren't going to stop the military. If this were ever to become an issue, the outcome will be the same, only there will be a lot of dead civilians due to their owning guns.
I'll focus on this point.
As an Army veteran who deployed to Afghanistan, I can personally attest to the efficacy of a bunch of pissed off regular people with guns against the might of the U.S. military. If people have weapons and a will, they can be very effective.
And think of how many Americans have died from IED's, and consider that the materials and equipment to make much more sophisticated explosives exists in this country.
Then remember the guy who made a homemade tank out of a bulldozer and went on a rampage? That would just be the beginning of it. American ingenuity combined with our extensive resources makes a deadly combination.
And remember the insurgents in Iraq who hacked a predator drone with a laptop? A U.S. Cyber-insurgency would be devastating. After all, kids these days have been using electronics since before they could use a toilet by themselves.
Then you also have to consider how the soldiers themselves would act. I couldn't name a single person I served with who I think would participate in a war against American citizens on American soil. Soldiers are not unthinking, unfeeling, mindless drones; they are people, just like you and me, who strive to do the right thing | 1) How are you going to enforce this ban?
2) what type of punishment should go with possession of an illegal firearm?
3) what are you going to do to prevent people from planting guns?
4) what are you going to do to compensate those for their loss of property/job?
5) how are you going to get rid of enough guns to make it so that it severely impacts the ability of a criminal to obtain one?
6) how are people going to handle dangerous wildlife on their property? | 5qr6s5 | CMV: Civilian gun ownership should be banned. | For clarification,
* Scope of this CMV is USA. ***EDIT:*** *Areas that have a significant dangerous wildlife problem will be excluded from the ban's scope (eg. gun use would be permitted in such areas only).*
* Tasers, water guns, paintball guns, BB guns, fake guns, are not considered 'guns' for the purpose of this CMV.
* Military, police, and security guards with special permits are excluded from the ban scope. The special permits will primarily be restricted to government security guards.
* Owning guns and bullets will be illegal. Purchase and sale of guns and bullets will be illegal. Use of guns and bullets will be illegal.
* After passage of the ban, there will be a one week grace period by which time all owned guns may be turned over to police stations. There shall be no compensation for turning over the guns.
* Government will not be actively searching for guns, however will act on credible claims of gun possession. Anyone found in possession of, and/or trying to buy/sell, a gun, or bullets used in guns, after the grace period has expired will be ***EDIT:*** *severely fined and imprisoned (depending on how much/what kind of guns and ammo in question; for example, punishment for a typical handgun may be some % of ability to pay + 5 years in prison).*
Reasons:
* Extensive number of deaths yearly from guns, many of which could be prevented.
* Criminal gun use will be curtailed as their access to them will be reduced.
Replies to expected counterarguments:
* **Self-protection** - Based on what I've read and heard, gun owners by and large will not be in a position to effectively use it for self defense.
* **Other ways of killing** - Based on what I've read and heard, it's far easier to kill (oneself and others, intentionally or accidentally) using a gun than with other means.
* **Militia** - ~~Guns aren't going to stop the military.~~ If this were ever to become an issue, the outcome will be the same, only there will be a lot of dead civilians due to their owning guns. ***EDIT:*** *For those of you who make the argument that we need armed civilians in case the military goes rogue, can you explain why this doesn't seem to be a concern for all the nations that restrict/forbid gun ownership?*
* **Criminals will still own guns** - Yes, but restricting ownership and trade of guns and bullets will make it harder for them to be supplied with such weapons, and the police will still have guns.
* **People paid for those guns** - yes, and people paid for other things that are made illegal. Doesn't mean we don't make those other things illegal.
* **People want to own guns** - Yes, and people want to do many things which are dangerous, like not wear seat belts. Doesn't mean we allow people to not use seat belts.
* **Dangerous to take guns away from gun owners** - Yes, and it's also dangerous to fight criminals. Doesn't mean we don't fight criminals.
* **Framing by planting guns** - Yes, and people can frame others for other crimes as well. Doesn't mean we don't have criminal law.
* **Gun manufacturers will suffer** - Yes, and most regulations will make some corporation or other to suffer. Doesn't mean we don't have regulations.
Arguments which won't change my view as they (IMO) are irrelevant:
* **Political impracticality** - the CMV isn't saying "we should pass the law at this particular time", but rather "it would be better for the law to have been passed than not".
* **2nd amendment** - the CMV is also saying "second amendment should be overturned".
--
Edits:
***EDIT:*** *Areas that have a significant dangerous wildlife problem will be excluded from the ban's scope (eg. gun use would be permitted in such areas only).*
***EDIT:*** ~~Guns aren't going to stop the military.~~ *For those of you who make the argument that we need armed civilians in case the military goes rogue, can you explain why this doesn't seem to be a concern for all the nations that restrict/forbid gun ownership?*
***EDIT:*** *severely fined and imprisoned (depending on how much/what kind of guns and ammo in question; for example, punishment for a typical handgun may be some % of ability to pay + 5 years in prison).*
| 1,485,652,899 | luminarium | dd1fkqo | dd1fi4x | 13 | 7 |
CMV: Art has no power to directly affect social change.
Full disclosure: I work in the arts, and while I'm a lifelong believer in the power of art and the humanities to enrich our individual lives, I balk at the belief held by most of my peers that art is a mechanism of social progress.
I can think of zero instances in which a work of art directly brought about any major changes to the social landscape of the United States. People have been protesting despotic rulers and demanding civil rights through art for generations, but ultimately it’s our elected officials, not artists, who make the most profound and lasting impact on our society.
Art doesn't end wars, appoint leaders, pass legislation, or deliver direct aid to marginalized communities. It may be incidental to social change, but it doesn't drive it. Change my view. | The documentary "The Thin Blue Line" got someone out of jail. That's social change. | https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1456836/migrant-child-dead-beach-turkey.jpg
Have you seen this image recently? Because I have. It's not current, and one might argue that it isn't "art," but I would say that it's relevant and does count as an art form.
People tend to react strongly to emotional appeals. Art often stirs emotions. Thus art can drive change. | 5qrnpg | CMV: Art has no power to directly affect social change. | Full disclosure: I work in the arts, and while I'm a lifelong believer in the power of art and the humanities to enrich our individual lives, I balk at the belief held by most of my peers that art is a mechanism of social progress.
I can think of zero instances in which a work of art directly brought about any major changes to the social landscape of the United States. People have been protesting despotic rulers and demanding civil rights through art for generations, but ultimately it’s our elected officials, not artists, who make the most profound and lasting impact on our society.
Art doesn't end wars, appoint leaders, pass legislation, or deliver direct aid to marginalized communities. It may be incidental to social change, but it doesn't drive it. Change my view. | 1,485,659,154 | cnotesayswhat | dd1nb2j | dd1kx7g | 5 | 4 |
CMV: I believe the "Muslim Ban" isn't a ban of Muslims and could be somewhat effective.
I believe the #MuslimBan trending on Twitter at this very moment isn't a "Muslim" ban as may seem to think it is. It's a banning of people from countries shown to have higher rates of terrorist activities, crime and other acts against our values via statistical data.
I believe this ban would ultimately be helpful in stopping some of the issues that European nations have faced with the refugee/migrant crisis. Countries like Germany and France have seen crime and harmful beliefs raise in these communities from people from this distinct nations and it can't be a coincidence with the vast amounts of cases where this has happened.
Granted, I feel it is somewhat wrong as it affects people who have no intention of doing harm to our society, and are willing to integrate but I believe we, as a nation, must defend our country by taking some action against the issues we face. Though, even saying that I doesn't necessarily think this is the way to go about it - but it's something that could be effective.
| The idea, at its core, is arguably a good one. I don't personally think it is the right strategy, but I can't give concrete reasons why it's terrible.
But then, today, we see the details. Permanent residents, temporary workers, and students. If they happened to be out of the country, too bad, you're not allowed back. Lived in the UK your whole life but have Somalian citizenship? Well, all your friends can travel to the US, but you can't.
Even worse than that, there's a religious test. Anyone who understands and approves of the constitution should shudder at the thought of that. Muslims go tot the back of the line for immigration appeals from these countries.
I agree that it's not exactly a "Muslim ban". But it indisputably discriminates against Muslims for no reason other than their religion. That's a fact, written plainly in the order.
It's all in the details. This order spits in the face of long-honored American and Western values. Freedom of religion, equality of nationality, honoring our word when granting papers of residence. These are no longer American values, which is a real shame. | >I believe the #MuslimBan trending on Twitter at this very moment isn't a "Muslim" ban as may seem to think it is. It's a banning of people from countries shown to have higher rates of terrorist activities, crime and other acts against our values via statistical data.
No, it's not. If it were, then Ukraine and Mali would be included following the levels of violent activity there, not to mention places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. | 5qst9u | CMV: I believe the "Muslim Ban" isn't a ban of Muslims and could be somewhat effective. | I believe the #MuslimBan trending on Twitter at this very moment isn't a "Muslim" ban as may seem to think it is. It's a banning of people from countries shown to have higher rates of terrorist activities, crime and other acts against our values via statistical data.
I believe this ban would ultimately be helpful in stopping some of the issues that European nations have faced with the refugee/migrant crisis. Countries like Germany and France have seen crime and harmful beliefs raise in these communities from people from this distinct nations and it can't be a coincidence with the vast amounts of cases where this has happened.
Granted, I feel it is somewhat wrong as it affects people who have no intention of doing harm to our society, and are willing to integrate but I believe we, as a nation, must defend our country by taking some action against the issues we face. Though, even saying that I doesn't necessarily think this is the way to go about it - but it's something that could be effective.
| 1,485,676,827 | Keniisu | dd1umw9 | dd1ugrb | 13 | 1 |
CMV- Our tipping system is screwed up and should be changed to reflect the amount of time a server has our table, and not a percentage of the bill.
Why is it that a server who brings me a hamburger, fries and a few soft drink refills on a tab of say, $12, get a tip for $2.40-3, but a server who brings me a filet mignon and a bottle of wine with a tab of $60 gets a tip of $12?
Besides, perhaps, having to dress up nicer, the server themselves has exactly the same job description when it comes to what I'm receiving from them.
Why don't we pay for something akin to an hourly wage? So, I think a servers time is worth a range of $12-15 dollars and hour and I pay that based on how long I'm at her station. I had great service on a bill of $30, I was there for 45 minutes, I tip $11.25.
Note, I'm not advocating a system where we tip less necessarily, but just that it not be based off WHAT they bring me, but how long I'm one of their tables.
Maybe $12-15 is high because they would generally have multiple tables? I'm not sure, I just feel the current system isn't fair to servers who do great jobs but work at a sandwich shop instead of a steakhouse. | I guess I can see it both ways, I agree that a higher quality restaurant has additional value, I guess I don't like the idea that the price of the food in particular is what constitutes how much I tip. If I get great service at a chilis I feel the tip should be higher than at a steakhouse where the service isn't great.
The service SHOULD be better but if it's not I don't like that the baseline for how much gratuity I owe jumps an energy level if the service isn't good.
Maybe I'm not making sense. I want to reiterate this isn't because I want to pay less in tips, I just don't feel like it should necessarily be based on food prices. | Tipping as a percentage of the total bill incentivizes the server to perform in the best interest of the paying customer and the restaurant. It also gives preference to service jobs in higher value establishments which have a higher requirement for good service. The primary job of service staff is to ensure customers have a good experience at the restaurant and in any business, the patrons that matter most are the ones that spend the most. Tying service tips to the total bill means the servers partly act as salespeople, trying to push customers to order drinks, appetizers, and higher value items and allows service staff to devote more time to catering an experience for patrons who order these (especially ones that order drinks). From the service staff and restaurant perspective, this is preferable to a time-based system which would privilege customers based on their need for service rather than their propensity to give the restaurant money. It's likely too, that customers who need the most service are bound to have a worse experience and less likely to tip. Service staff generally interrupt the meal and tipping them based on the time they spend at the table would encourage them to spend more time interrupting and possibly annoying customers.
>Maybe $12-15 is high because they would generally have multiple tables? I'm not sure, I just feel the current system isn't fair to servers who do great jobs but work at a sandwich shop instead of a steakhouse.
This is kind of exactly the point. People aren't compensated for the effort they give but for the value they provide. The value of service at a sandwich shop is much less important than that at a steakhouse. The tipping system reflects this. | 5qu2lm | CMV- Our tipping system is screwed up and should be changed to reflect the amount of time a server has our table, and not a percentage of the bill. | Why is it that a server who brings me a hamburger, fries and a few soft drink refills on a tab of say, $12, get a tip for $2.40-3, but a server who brings me a filet mignon and a bottle of wine with a tab of $60 gets a tip of $12?
Besides, perhaps, having to dress up nicer, the server themselves has exactly the same job description when it comes to what I'm receiving from them.
Why don't we pay for something akin to an hourly wage? So, I think a servers time is worth a range of $12-15 dollars and hour and I pay that based on how long I'm at her station. I had great service on a bill of $30, I was there for 45 minutes, I tip $11.25.
Note, I'm not advocating a system where we tip less necessarily, but just that it not be based off WHAT they bring me, but how long I'm one of their tables.
Maybe $12-15 is high because they would generally have multiple tables? I'm not sure, I just feel the current system isn't fair to servers who do great jobs but work at a sandwich shop instead of a steakhouse. | 1,485,701,418 | Whitey98 | dd263y7 | dd247qk | 3 | 1 |
CMV: Terrorism in the US is not a big deal and Trump's ban will have no impact on it
A lot of people have been bringing up that "the countries on Trump's ban aren't the ones that have people who killed Americans in terrorist acts in the US." Which is valid. But I'd go even further: America doesn't have a terrorism problem. There's around an average of [10 deaths](https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf) from terrorism in the US per year. How low could we possibly get that in a country with more guns than people?
Even assuming a diffuse probability in Muslims having a certain chance to commit these acts (which again, is not the case), that is a 10/[3.3 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States)=0.0003% chance that any given Muslim will kill someone through terrorism. And if you stopped all Muslim immigration (which this ban is not even doing), that would decrease your chance of death from terrorism by 0.0003%*[50,000](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/05/17/the-religious-affiliation-of-us-immigrants/)=15%. So around 1 more death from terrorism a year.
And this is ignoring the possible increase in terrorism from growing animosity, problems with relations between countries, the deaths of refugees that we don’t help, etc.
EDIT: Not exactly the change I thought might happen, but it turns out that the ban might actually increase the risk of terrorism due to alienation. I said "Trump's ban will have no impact on it". It very well could have an impact. Just probably not the direction we'd like.
| Not sure if this is playing to the spirit of the rules, but regarding your second point "Trump's ban will have no impact on [Terrorism in the US]" this is not the case. By putting in place such a sweeping ban the only logical result I can see is that those in the affected countries who are more moderate (or at least not committed to heading to the US to kill people) are more likely to be pushed into extremism. For each force there is a reaction, and the reaction here is that more people will be driven to the point where they are willing to engage violently against the US.
Will the ban stop terrorists from making it to the US? Almost certainly not.
Will it impact the number of potential terrorists looking to enter the US to do people harm? Quite likely... | are you saying we should accept the clear heightened risk of terrorism that a policy such as this results in just so we're not supposedly 'giving in to terrorist demands,'?. Shouldn't the result of any policy to be to avoid loss of life as much as possible.
Ofcourse this policy lessens the risk of an attack from a Syrian refugee, but it makes it much easier for foreign and well-oiled terrorist groups to radicalize young susceptible Americans. By telling them they're kind are an enemy of the state, ofcourse you are pushing young vulnerable Muslims to turn on their country. Thus, we have to consider that a result of this policy Is going to be further attacks from radicalized US nationals, a group who already commit more attacks in the US than foreign Muslims. | 5qu9w7 | CMV: Terrorism in the US is not a big deal and Trump's ban will have no impact on it | A lot of people have been bringing up that "the countries on Trump's ban aren't the ones that have people who killed Americans in terrorist acts in the US." Which is valid. But I'd go even further: America doesn't have a terrorism problem. There's around an average of [10 deaths](https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf) from terrorism in the US per year. How low could we possibly get that in a country with more guns than people?
Even assuming a diffuse probability in Muslims having a certain chance to commit these acts (which again, is not the case), that is a 10/[3.3 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States)=0.0003% chance that any given Muslim will kill someone through terrorism. And if you stopped all Muslim immigration (which this ban is not even doing), that would decrease your chance of death from terrorism by 0.0003%*[50,000](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/05/17/the-religious-affiliation-of-us-immigrants/)=15%. So around 1 more death from terrorism a year.
And this is ignoring the possible increase in terrorism from growing animosity, problems with relations between countries, the deaths of refugees that we don’t help, etc.
EDIT: Not exactly the change I thought might happen, but it turns out that the ban might actually increase the risk of terrorism due to alienation. I said "Trump's ban will have no impact on it". It very well could have an impact. Just probably not the direction we'd like.
| 1,485,704,007 | RickAndMorty101Years | dd26w2j | dd26a23 | 527 | 5 |
CMV:Christians are obligated to take in Syrian refugees
This post was sparked by my Facebook feed. Today I was dismayed to see so many of my intensely Christian friends and relatives celebrate the Trump immigrant ban. It is my opinion that as Christians they have a duty to help those in need. The Bible is replete with examples, but I'll be focusing on two parables for this post.
**The Parable of the Good Samaritan**
Unfortunately a good deal of this parable's meaning is wrapped up in first century geopolitics and is lost on the modern reader. It is important to remember that the Jews and Samaritans really hated each other. I've edited the parable to give it a more modern context.
*Luke 10:25-37*
>On one occasion a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
>In reply Jesus said: “An Israeli man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by muggers. They stripped him of his valuables, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A Rabbi happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a police man, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a member of the Palestinian Hamas, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds. Then he put the man in his own car and brought him to a hospital. The next day he paid $150 for the man's medical bills. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
> “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of muggers?” The lawyer replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
What we modern readers consider a sweet little story probably outraged Jesus's audience. Israel and Hamas are fairly decent proxies for the Judeans and Samaritans. The parable is clear, even your enemies are your "neighbor".
**The Sheep and the Goats**
*Matthew 25:31-46*
I'm not going to post the entire verse since it needs no translation. I'll just link it:
[Bible Gateway!](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV)
Excerpt:
>^42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ^43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
>^44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
>^45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Emphasis:
> I was a stranger and you did not invite me in
Seems pretty clear to me.
Here is a bonus quote from the Old Testament:
*Leviticus 19:33-34*
>When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
It seems pretty clear to me that Christians that are celebrating the refugee ban are betraying some of the more fundamental ethical teachings in the Bible.
EDIT:
To keep things within a reasonable scope I've added some clarifications / constraints:
To put the argument more formally.
A. Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus.
B. Jesus taught that we should show compassion to those in need. Even if they are from a different race / religion.
C. Syrian refugees are a people in need.
D. Therefore Christians should help the Syrian refugees.
To get a delta you will need to prove at least on of these.
1. Syrian refugees do not need help.
2. Jesus / Paul / The Apostles did not want their followers to help the poor and needy.
3. Syrian refugees are somehow exempt from the commandments to love your neighbor and to help those in need.
To keep the discussion reasonably focused we need to keep this premise:
Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus.
Preferably keep the discussion to the New Testament. New vs Old Testament is another rabbit hole.
edit #2:
Here is another verse that says you are to love your neighbor even if they are your enemy and actively persecuting you:
*Matthew 5:43-48*
>^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ^46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ^47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ^48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
| I'm going to take issue with your word obligated - as that is the only way I can think of changing your view.
Taking the generally Pauline view, we, as Christians are 'Obligated' to do nothing. All burdens of duty and the law have been removed by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Its why Christians no longer follow Kosher, or circumcision.
We therefore have nothing that we have to do. Rather, because of Christ's sacrifice helping others is logically something we should want to do, demonstrating the same love to others that Christ showed to us.
In this sense I would say Christians should, in the sense of being logically consistent, help refugees, because they should want to, after reflecting on Christ's sacrifice. But not out a form of legal obligation or commandment that comes from describing themselves as Christians - which is the implied meaning behind your term "Obligated". | That's a bad argument akin to: "if you can fly in a plane, you must be able to fly in a car - they're both vehicles."
If you could point to the verse you're referring to w/r/t stoning, I could probably give you an answer. The first point I would make that doesn't require the passage itself, is that interpreting the vast majority of Bible verses as direct commands meant to apply to me here and now is wrong. For instance, neither I nor any Christian I've heard of have actually gouged out their eyes or chopped off their hands to prevent sin.
EDIT - Also, Rosebud isn't just a sled in Citizen Kane, Elvis was not actually singing about a hound dog, and God is not actually thought of as a being who presides over sheep and goats. | 5qv388 | CMV:Christians are obligated to take in Syrian refugees | This post was sparked by my Facebook feed. Today I was dismayed to see so many of my intensely Christian friends and relatives celebrate the Trump immigrant ban. It is my opinion that as Christians they have a duty to help those in need. The Bible is replete with examples, but I'll be focusing on two parables for this post.
**The Parable of the Good Samaritan**
Unfortunately a good deal of this parable's meaning is wrapped up in first century geopolitics and is lost on the modern reader. It is important to remember that the Jews and Samaritans really hated each other. I've edited the parable to give it a more modern context.
*Luke 10:25-37*
>On one occasion a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
>In reply Jesus said: “An Israeli man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by muggers. They stripped him of his valuables, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A Rabbi happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a police man, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a member of the Palestinian Hamas, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds. Then he put the man in his own car and brought him to a hospital. The next day he paid $150 for the man's medical bills. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
> “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of muggers?” The lawyer replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
What we modern readers consider a sweet little story probably outraged Jesus's audience. Israel and Hamas are fairly decent proxies for the Judeans and Samaritans. The parable is clear, even your enemies are your "neighbor".
**The Sheep and the Goats**
*Matthew 25:31-46*
I'm not going to post the entire verse since it needs no translation. I'll just link it:
[Bible Gateway!](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV)
Excerpt:
>^42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ^43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
>^44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
>^45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Emphasis:
> I was a stranger and you did not invite me in
Seems pretty clear to me.
Here is a bonus quote from the Old Testament:
*Leviticus 19:33-34*
>When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
It seems pretty clear to me that Christians that are celebrating the refugee ban are betraying some of the more fundamental ethical teachings in the Bible.
EDIT:
To keep things within a reasonable scope I've added some clarifications / constraints:
To put the argument more formally.
A. Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus.
B. Jesus taught that we should show compassion to those in need. Even if they are from a different race / religion.
C. Syrian refugees are a people in need.
D. Therefore Christians should help the Syrian refugees.
To get a delta you will need to prove at least on of these.
1. Syrian refugees do not need help.
2. Jesus / Paul / The Apostles did not want their followers to help the poor and needy.
3. Syrian refugees are somehow exempt from the commandments to love your neighbor and to help those in need.
To keep the discussion reasonably focused we need to keep this premise:
Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus.
Preferably keep the discussion to the New Testament. New vs Old Testament is another rabbit hole.
edit #2:
Here is another verse that says you are to love your neighbor even if they are your enemy and actively persecuting you:
*Matthew 5:43-48*
>^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ^46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ^47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ^48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
| 1,485,713,167 | endless_sea_of_stars | dd2l8s1 | dd2eyt4 | 54 | 4 |
CMV: There is no useful role for God/religion in modern society.
The concept of a creator explained why things happened in the time of hunters and gatherers. Having a god was a necessity because the workings of the world could not be adequately explained by anything else. Obviously, things have changed and humans can now explain a great many things through science and cause-and-effect. That’s the main reason I see religion is no longer relevant to society.
I understand that many religions aim to assist those in need, which is very useful. However, it’s a bit upsetting to think that a lot of religion-based humanitarian relief wouldn’t exist without religion, simply because people wouldn’t feel as compelled to help others without it. I suppose I just made a case for how religion can be and is useful, but it’s the motive behind that type of kindness that has always bothered me.
That leads to my last point: some people are not kind, but are cruel, and they use religion as an acceptable excuse to act as such. I’ve personally seen others use religion to serve their own means, and although I don’t care much for any god, I know that many people do, and to see someone abuse what many people hold dear is absolutely reprehensible.
Why I am open to hearing the other perspective: like I said, religion is very important to a lot of people . . . a LOT. With so many people believing in one god or another, including many people that I love and respect, there must be something to the whole religion thing that does some good, and I want to hear about it. | I think one thing that religion can do is help people deal with the fact that life is not perfect, but is full of all sorts of tragedies and disasters. Some people just manage to deal with it on their own, sometimes with some forms of self-medication, some people go to psychologists or psychiatrists for help, but I think for some people, the best way to deal with it is through religious ideas such as that everything happens because it is the will of a benevolent God, or that life is suffering but one can end that suffering through the Buddhist Eightfold Path.
I agree that religion can be used for bad things, but I think of it as a tool, neither good nor evil in itself, but can be either depending on how its used. | I would point out that many churches and other religious institutions do great work in charity and community formation. So while religion certainly has it's problems with the modern world it also has it's upsides. | 5qv6d6 | CMV: There is no useful role for God/religion in modern society. | The concept of a creator explained why things happened in the time of hunters and gatherers. Having a god was a necessity because the workings of the world could not be adequately explained by anything else. Obviously, things have changed and humans can now explain a great many things through science and cause-and-effect. That’s the main reason I see religion is no longer relevant to society.
I understand that many religions aim to assist those in need, which is very useful. However, it’s a bit upsetting to think that a lot of religion-based humanitarian relief wouldn’t exist without religion, simply because people wouldn’t feel as compelled to help others without it. I suppose I just made a case for how religion can be and is useful, but it’s the motive behind that type of kindness that has always bothered me.
That leads to my last point: some people are not kind, but are cruel, and they use religion as an acceptable excuse to act as such. I’ve personally seen others use religion to serve their own means, and although I don’t care much for any god, I know that many people do, and to see someone abuse what many people hold dear is absolutely reprehensible.
Why I am open to hearing the other perspective: like I said, religion is very important to a lot of people . . . a LOT. With so many people believing in one god or another, including many people that I love and respect, there must be something to the whole religion thing that does some good, and I want to hear about it. | 1,485,714,069 | breannab_2020 | dd2e6n9 | dd2cr87 | 14 | 10 |
CMV: Some day, polyamory will be considered a normal form of sexuality.
Our culture becomes more and more open towards different form of sexuality or sexual acts - homosexuality, sex before marriage, more than one partner throughout one's lifetime, STD check-ups, oral sex, porn usage, ...
Nowadays, polyamory is this type of relationship that few people talk about, even fewer practice and it's generally considered "weird". While I do think that monogamy will remain dominant, I believe that as time goes on, polyamory will be added to the list of expressions of sexuality that were once taboo but have become socially acceptable.
This question of "Will polyamory be accepted by society in the future" has another question related to it: "Is it a normal form of sexuality?". I do believe so, just like homosexuality or promiscuity are normal, whereas pedophilia is a dangerous deviation. I'm open to talking about this as well, but my main focus is on society's attitude towards polyamory in the future.
My focus in not on the legal implications.
For context, I view polyamory as different from promiscuity by considering polyamory as being in long-term relationships with more than one person at the same time, with consent from all parties involved.
I'm in a monogamous heterosexual relationship, so I believe that I come to this conversation without any bias, rather with ignorance since I don't know any poly-amorous person in my personal life. I'd highly appreciate input form poly-amorous folks or relevant links!
| So let's look a little more at how polygamy and polyandry tends to arise in existing cultures to get a slightly different view of this topic.
It seems there tend to be three distinct different mating systems found in primates in general (with variations thrown in). They are distinctly polygyny (single male multi female also known as harem); polyandry (single female multi male, sometimes called reverse harem); and single mate systems. Now these systems tend to be based off of a few biological and environmental factors. Namely sexual dimorphism, food availability, and the intensiveness of child rearing. So sexual dimorphism seems pretty obvious If the male is larger it tends to be a more harem based system (almost always with the exception of humans). If the female is larger a more reverse harem thing is the norm. And if they are around the same size than things kinda go any way possible, but it tends to be more single mate where lengths of that single mate depend on the species. Now humans have a pretty large degree of sexual dimorphism, like almost all the apes the males are bigger than the female, so that would TEND to point towards polygamy being the more natural form of mating system (polygamy is incredibly common historically, and in existing cultures). Thing is that's where the other factors come into play. The less food availability there is other systems tend to arise (less land to grow food, tends to lead to polyandry some anthropologists theorize it's due to limitations on child baring and inheritance, which is also backed by high rates of infanticide in said cultures). Yet where the food is more plentiful single mate systems seem to be the norm (now its theorized that this is partially due to more need for competition among females for prized males, this is slightly backed by cultures that are normally polygamous coming into more resources and the women refusing for males to take other wives). Now the reason I said it had to do with the ease of child rearing, is because in slightly harsher environments it's good to have a closer knit community to ensure the success of your children, yet in modern environments you can hire people to do that rather than needing a sisterwife (this also has helped trend towards neolocalism but that's a different topic).
Looking at the biological trend, it would appear that humans are trending more and more towards single mate systems with ease of food, ease of childcare, and competition being a norm, now this also tends to beg the question of long term relationships being the norm in the future, but not really the question of mating systems. Now that doesn't mean that polyamorous relationships won't be a thing; but the trend of them being a norm? Probably not. | Does some day mean years, decades, or hundreds of years?
If you want to talk about years or (a few) decades - I doubt that polyamory will be widely socially practiced. The reason for this is that the legal and social structures that we have in place (divorce, marriage, parental rights, etc.) are deeply ingrained in law and social practice. Polygamy is not something most liberals support because of its connection to misogyny and oppression. Adding another person (on terms of equality) is difficult and requires a critical mass of change. How do you change laws and social practice such that polyamorous groupings have the same rights in divorce, child rearing, inheritance, etc. ? And that is the liberal view - conservatives would either find this discussion horrifying or focus on the religious freedom of polygamists... libertarians are a wild card, but I haven't seen any major focus on this issue or any policy proposals that would lead to any legal/social change.
What we have now is more sexual freedom than in the past, and to use Dan Savage's term, a "monogamish" view of sexuality among those who are more liberal (and libertarian) about sexual behavior. People work within the legal-social default (couples) but sexual behavior is more negotiable and based on mutual consent. That might be seen as normal... because we already do it. [Here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/strictly-casual/201404/whos-really-interested-in-alternate-relationships) is one set of stats. And another on [interest in non-monogamy](http://www.livescience.com/27129-polyamory-good-relationships.html).
A third (or fourth or fifth) would only work with this if there were major changes in how the family and relationships were structured. That is why it is unlikely that polyamory (as opposed to non-monogamy) will become "normal." Open relationships are not much of a stretch in comparison. | 5qvrmx | CMV: Some day, polyamory will be considered a normal form of sexuality. | Our culture becomes more and more open towards different form of sexuality or sexual acts - homosexuality, sex before marriage, more than one partner throughout one's lifetime, STD check-ups, oral sex, porn usage, ...
Nowadays, polyamory is this type of relationship that few people talk about, even fewer practice and it's generally considered "weird". While I do think that monogamy will remain dominant, I believe that as time goes on, polyamory will be added to the list of expressions of sexuality that were once taboo but have become socially acceptable.
This question of "Will polyamory be accepted by society in the future" has another question related to it: "Is it a normal form of sexuality?". I do believe so, just like homosexuality or promiscuity are normal, whereas pedophilia is a dangerous deviation. I'm open to talking about this as well, but my main focus is on society's attitude towards polyamory in the future.
My focus in not on the legal implications.
For context, I view polyamory as different from promiscuity by considering polyamory as being in long-term relationships with more than one person at the same time, with consent from all parties involved.
I'm in a monogamous heterosexual relationship, so I believe that I come to this conversation without any bias, rather with ignorance since I don't know any poly-amorous person in my personal life. I'd highly appreciate input form poly-amorous folks or relevant links!
| 1,485,720,244 | IrisHopp | dd2jyk5 | dd2jbcs | 6 | 3 |
CMV: Donald Trump is not racist towards black people.
To start this post, I don't like Donald Trump, I despise him. I think he shouldn't be president, I think it's a failure of this country that he even got CLOSE to being the president, let alone the fact he actually IS the president, but I digress.
People like to throw accusations out a lot about Trump. Such as, 'he's sexist', 'he's racist', 'he's homophobic' ETC..
Not once have I ever actually seen any evidence that he is racist. Look, I can believe very easily that a 70 year-old white man is racist. But, as far as I've seen, he's never said or done anything racist in the last 10 years. Don't bother showing me anything from 20+ years ago, I think that's irrelevant to who Donald Trump is now. And you shouldn't be judged on your actions from 20 years ago.
However, Trump certainly does appear to be somewhat racist towards middle-eastern people. A blanket ban on all people from certain country's even if they have a green card is very egregious.
But I've yet to see anything that shows he is racist towards black people. I'm actually fairly certain that he is NOT racist towards black people at all. Because of his friendship with Kanye West. I really don't think Kanye is the kinda guy who would EVER associate with anyone he even THOUGHT was racist.
I could be very wrong in my opinions right now, so, try and CMV! | > Don't bother showing me anything from 20+ years ago, I think that's irrelevant to who Donald Trump is now. And you shouldn't be judged on your actions from 20 years ago.
This assumption really needs to be challenged. True, racist people can change. But you don't just get the benefit of the doubt. You have to actively own up and apologize for your previous statements / actions and show you are not racist.
When you've been shown to be in charge of discriminatory housing policies against black people, and when you've said things like the below quote, you need to demonstrate you have changed.
> Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.
As far as I now he has never apologized for that remark or disowned it.
Furthermore, his birtherism and accusations that Obama is a Muslim are clearly racist, especially when you consider Trump's previous statements and actions. Is there *any* chance that Trump would have accused a white president of being born outside the U.S. and being a Muslim despite tremendous evidence to the contrary? | What about his position at the forefront of the "birtherist" movement that claims that Barack Obama was not born in the United States? What about his choices for Cabinet, including white supremacist Steve Bannon as chief of staff? | 5qvsw9 | CMV: Donald Trump is not racist towards black people. | To start this post, I don't like Donald Trump, I despise him. I think he shouldn't be president, I think it's a failure of this country that he even got CLOSE to being the president, let alone the fact he actually IS the president, but I digress.
People like to throw accusations out a lot about Trump. Such as, 'he's sexist', 'he's racist', 'he's homophobic' ETC..
Not once have I ever actually seen any evidence that he is racist. Look, I can believe very easily that a 70 year-old white man is racist. But, as far as I've seen, he's never said or done anything racist in the last 10 years. Don't bother showing me anything from 20+ years ago, I think that's irrelevant to who Donald Trump is now. And you shouldn't be judged on your actions from 20 years ago.
However, Trump certainly does appear to be somewhat racist towards middle-eastern people. A blanket ban on all people from certain country's even if they have a green card is very egregious.
But I've yet to see anything that shows he is racist towards black people. I'm actually fairly certain that he is NOT racist towards black people at all. Because of his friendship with Kanye West. I really don't think Kanye is the kinda guy who would EVER associate with anyone he even THOUGHT was racist.
I could be very wrong in my opinions right now, so, try and CMV! | 1,485,720,606 | The_Muffin_ | dd2hatb | dd2h4sr | 151 | 43 |
CMV: Donald Trump should not be banned from a state visit to the UK.
I want to begin this by saying that I fundamentally disapprove of Donald Trump and all that he stands for. However, I believe that banning him from an audience with the Queen would be a gesture of disrespect to the leader of the USA at a time when it cannot really be afforded. Britain, having backed itself into a corner with Brexit, desperately needs trade deals for the future, and antagonising any major world leader, especially that of America, would be the exact same kind of emotion-fuelled, heart-before-head, short-sighted protest that caused the exit from the European union in the first place.
| There are several different arguments which you could have put forward to support your view, and some of them might be good, but the one you have chosen is potentially dangerous: you have portrayed Trump as a bully who must be appeased by Britain otherwise Britain may suffer economic hardships due to unfavourable trade agreements with the USA.
Appeasing bullies is a dangerous road to go down, because it gives them even more power which can lead to even greater appeasements being demanded.
I think Britain is trying to give a clear message to Trump that they do not approve of his behaviour, but that they do want mutually beneficial trade agreements. | As an American I believe our President has massively overstepped his authority and put the country at risk this first week in office. While the principle behind his actions, like vetting immigrants better has merit the implementation was abhorrent. He has to be put in his place and the only way to do that is with very public shamings. So I think it would be a very good thing if his State visit was canceled. | 5qwj5n | CMV: Donald Trump should not be banned from a state visit to the UK. | I want to begin this by saying that I fundamentally disapprove of Donald Trump and all that he stands for. However, I believe that banning him from an audience with the Queen would be a gesture of disrespect to the leader of the USA at a time when it cannot really be afforded. Britain, having backed itself into a corner with Brexit, desperately needs trade deals for the future, and antagonising any major world leader, especially that of America, would be the exact same kind of emotion-fuelled, heart-before-head, short-sighted protest that caused the exit from the European union in the first place.
| 1,485,727,790 | count_sacula | dd3czmg | dd2v622 | 7 | 1 |
CMV: A human-targeting, antibiotic-resistant pandemic would be an ideal situation.
As in the title, I believe that a global, human-targeting, antibiotic-resistant virus which would be lethal would be the best case scenario.
If the virus affected only humans, had a high lethality rate, and was unaffected by antibiotics, the human race would face utter annihilation. If humans were to become extinct, the damage we do to the world would cease, and hopefully a process of healing could begin. If the human race were to extinguish itself, we would likely do so through global warming or nuclear holocaust, which would be much more severe for the planet. Our existence continuously does more harm than good, both to the environment and to ourselves.
EDIT: I've repeated many times, I'm not an all-out nihilist. I just have nihilistic leanings.
I've removed my nihilism comment. It seems to get us off-topic.
EDIT: I've been made aware that viruses aren't normally affected by antibiotics. I'm not well versed in the subject. I simply meant untreatable. | Well problem is that humans are a part of nature. So your entire "save nature by destroying nature" plan is a little bit self defeating. And as a human I would prefer living! I kinda like it here.
As for the nihilistic tendencies I would suggest taking it further. So don't fall into the trap of passive nihilism, but go active nihilism. Join the existentialist side of it and recognize its okay that nothing has meaning! | that's not nihilism, that's valuing society and the world over individual people through dissociation.
Nation leaders do this when they send armies into battle. And its ok, and only ok, when they do this because they were chosen by the people and given by the people the responsibility to make that hard decision.
Anyone else who thinks they have the right to make such a decision is not a nihilist but a psychopath.
| 5qwkw1 | CMV: A human-targeting, antibiotic-resistant pandemic would be an ideal situation. |
As in the title, I believe that a global, human-targeting, antibiotic-resistant virus which would be lethal would be the best case scenario.
If the virus affected only humans, had a high lethality rate, and was unaffected by antibiotics, the human race would face utter annihilation. If humans were to become extinct, the damage we do to the world would cease, and hopefully a process of healing could begin. If the human race were to extinguish itself, we would likely do so through global warming or nuclear holocaust, which would be much more severe for the planet. Our existence continuously does more harm than good, both to the environment and to ourselves.
EDIT: I've repeated many times, I'm not an all-out nihilist. I just have nihilistic leanings.
I've removed my nihilism comment. It seems to get us off-topic.
EDIT: I've been made aware that viruses aren't normally affected by antibiotics. I'm not well versed in the subject. I simply meant untreatable. | 1,485,728,280 | Aspdunsparce | dd2poji | dd2nqw4 | 3 | 2 |
CMV: The mainstream media has a liberal bias
We've all heard certain people insist that the mainstream media had a left-leaning bias. I used to think this was complete garbage, and that it was only something uneducated Republicans said when things didn't go their way. I knew that some news outlets had biases (MSNBC goes left, FOX goes right, etc.) but I thought a lot of sources at least made an attempt at being fair.
This past week, however, has cast all that into doubt. While I don't agree with a lot of what Trump has done, I believe it's been purposefully misinterpreted/misrepresented by the media in order to whip up a storm. Whether this is the result of a long-held bias that I've been oblivious to this whole time, or whether this is a direct result of Trump attacking the media for their "dishonesty," I don't know. However, I think it's incredibly damaging to both the news outlets' and Democrats' credibility that these sources are being shared and taken as fact by a large majority of the population.
A lot of the times, they interpret an Executive Order/Bill/Speech that can be easily accessed online in it's original form, but since people are too lazy/oblivious to the fact that they can find these themselves, they choose to take the word of a "fair" news source as fact.
While there are multiple examples this week, I'd like to focus on the big story from the last two days: The immigration/refugee ban.
The actual text from the order can be found [here.](https://ir.usembassy.gov/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/)
If you click on the link, hit Ctrl + F and search for "Muslim," you'll see that there are *no results at all.* Yet, this ban is being called a "Muslim Ban" by a lot of reputable news sources:
[New York Times Editorial Board](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-is-cowardly-and-dangerous.html)
[The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/republicans-call-trumps-muslim-ban-a-self-inflicted-wound)
[Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-muslim-ban-nationals-citizens-countries_us_588e04d1e4b017637794ef1c)
And more. All you have to do is Google "Trump Muslim Ban" and hundreds of sources pop up, insinuating that Trump *specifically* banned Muslims. That is not the case.
If you scroll down a bit, you'll see the part that highlights which countries are affected, specifically:
> I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)...
If you look up 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), you'll find the text which outlines the law (or you can just click [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187)). If that's too legalese for you, you can read the [DHS' statement on it form 2016.](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program) I understand the DHS's statement is focused on an update to the law, but I included it here because it ties into this point: The DHS, under the Obama Administration, compiled the list of the seven countries involved in the ban.
Why is it, then, that reputable news outlets such as [NPR](http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324/countries-listed-on-trumps-refugee-ban-dont-include-those-he-has-business-with), [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html), [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.e7bb9c7fa964) and many, many more.
(Granted, there are a few sources that occasionally tip-toe on both sides, such as [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/) running this wonderful article explaining the ban more in-depth, however this article didn't come close to CNN's front page or near the top of Google search results.)
There are many more examples, and if you'd like some more I'd be down to pull them up and share in the comments. I've only started noticing this phenomenon in regards to Trump, but I don't know if that's because it is more rampant now or if I've only started to notice now. I don't believe that the media has an honest agenda, and I'm starting to actually agree with those Republicans I used to think were just crazy. In my opinion, the *majority* of the media is blatantly biased, and trying to push a hard Anti-Trump narrative for some reason or another.
Please CMV.
--------------------------------
**EDIT: This is turning into a "CMV: Trump's ban is fine," instead of the original question. I do not agree with Donald Trump's ban, but I think the media isn't being honest about him in general. So far, only /u/tesla123456 has answered my question (with a very good response).**
| I'm going to just focus on the media part and let the muslim ban part just work itself out...
Regarding media bias, one of the studies that has been most often cited has been a meta-analysis by [D'Alessio and Allen](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract) (2000). Their basic findings after analyzing ~60 studies was that while individual sources varied in their overall levels of bias, these typically cancelled each other out, meaning that the 'media' as an institution was not systematically skewed in one direction. More recent studies have found that there still does not appear to be an overall slant in the media. [Budak, Goel, and Rao](https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/250/2223443/Fair-and-Balanced-Quantifying-Media-Bias-through) (2016) found a pretty neutral media when it came to descriptive stories, however, when it came to opinion based pieces there was a bit more bias (although still not systematically liberal). Unsurprisingly, Daily Kos was the most biased liberal outlet and Breitbart was the most biased conservative outlet.
edit: fixed link | Trump is just following through with what he said he would do.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
> December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
His own team is saying this Executive Order is just him fulfilling his campaign promise.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spicer-trump/story?id=45123887
> White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer pushed back against criticism of President Donald Trump's executive order on travel and refugees, asserting that the safety of the U.S. is paramount and the president is fulfilling his campaign promises.
> President Trump has "hit the ground running, had a flurry of activity, to do exactly what he said he was going to do," including on national security, Spicer told ABC News' Martha Raddatz on "This Week."
Edit: To make it clear, Trump said he was going to have a "Muslim Ban" during the campaign, he has done it and so its is fair to call it a "Muslim Ban" and not a media bias. | 5qx4ho | CMV: The mainstream media has a liberal bias | We've all heard certain people insist that the mainstream media had a left-leaning bias. I used to think this was complete garbage, and that it was only something uneducated Republicans said when things didn't go their way. I knew that some news outlets had biases (MSNBC goes left, FOX goes right, etc.) but I thought a lot of sources at least made an attempt at being fair.
This past week, however, has cast all that into doubt. While I don't agree with a lot of what Trump has done, I believe it's been purposefully misinterpreted/misrepresented by the media in order to whip up a storm. Whether this is the result of a long-held bias that I've been oblivious to this whole time, or whether this is a direct result of Trump attacking the media for their "dishonesty," I don't know. However, I think it's incredibly damaging to both the news outlets' and Democrats' credibility that these sources are being shared and taken as fact by a large majority of the population.
A lot of the times, they interpret an Executive Order/Bill/Speech that can be easily accessed online in it's original form, but since people are too lazy/oblivious to the fact that they can find these themselves, they choose to take the word of a "fair" news source as fact.
While there are multiple examples this week, I'd like to focus on the big story from the last two days: The immigration/refugee ban.
The actual text from the order can be found [here.](https://ir.usembassy.gov/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/)
If you click on the link, hit Ctrl + F and search for "Muslim," you'll see that there are *no results at all.* Yet, this ban is being called a "Muslim Ban" by a lot of reputable news sources:
[New York Times Editorial Board](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-is-cowardly-and-dangerous.html)
[The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/republicans-call-trumps-muslim-ban-a-self-inflicted-wound)
[Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-muslim-ban-nationals-citizens-countries_us_588e04d1e4b017637794ef1c)
And more. All you have to do is Google "Trump Muslim Ban" and hundreds of sources pop up, insinuating that Trump *specifically* banned Muslims. That is not the case.
If you scroll down a bit, you'll see the part that highlights which countries are affected, specifically:
> I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)...
If you look up 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), you'll find the text which outlines the law (or you can just click [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187)). If that's too legalese for you, you can read the [DHS' statement on it form 2016.](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program) I understand the DHS's statement is focused on an update to the law, but I included it here because it ties into this point: The DHS, under the Obama Administration, compiled the list of the seven countries involved in the ban.
Why is it, then, that reputable news outlets such as [NPR](http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324/countries-listed-on-trumps-refugee-ban-dont-include-those-he-has-business-with), [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html), [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.e7bb9c7fa964) and many, many more.
(Granted, there are a few sources that occasionally tip-toe on both sides, such as [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/) running this wonderful article explaining the ban more in-depth, however this article didn't come close to CNN's front page or near the top of Google search results.)
There are many more examples, and if you'd like some more I'd be down to pull them up and share in the comments. I've only started noticing this phenomenon in regards to Trump, but I don't know if that's because it is more rampant now or if I've only started to notice now. I don't believe that the media has an honest agenda, and I'm starting to actually agree with those Republicans I used to think were just crazy. In my opinion, the *majority* of the media is blatantly biased, and trying to push a hard Anti-Trump narrative for some reason or another.
Please CMV.
--------------------------------
**EDIT: This is turning into a "CMV: Trump's ban is fine," instead of the original question. I do not agree with Donald Trump's ban, but I think the media isn't being honest about him in general. So far, only /u/tesla123456 has answered my question (with a very good response).**
| 1,485,733,907 | BrazilianRider | dd304j7 | dd2shui | 27 | 1 |
CMV: In the lottery, it is worse to share the jackpot than it is to win the entire jackpot
For example, if there is a $200 million jackpot, it is worse if 20 people win it and thus you get $10 million each than it is to win the entire $200 million jackpot. I keep telling people this, people keep saying, "Well no" but they fail to refute my main argument so here it is:
The more money you have, the more freedom you get. $10 million can get you a nice house, nice car, allow you to fly first class sometimes but not all the time, ensure no emergency can destroy your life, etc. However wouldn't it be better to win the entire $200 million so you can get several nice houses, several nice cars, allow you to fly first class all the time and still ensure no emergency can destroy your life? Also, before you say, "Yeah but you'll get taxed more if you have $200 million - that doesn't change the fact that the $200 million guy will still have more than the $10 million guy
| **Winning the Lottery is the worst thing ever**.
The only instance in which it doesn't suck is if you're part of the Massachusetts hedge fund that games the system. Outside of that, it is a curse. And the more money, the worse it is. Why?
* You are an immediate target for lawsuits. And even if you win the suit, you have to pay the lawyers. It's usually more expensive to try the case than to pay the lawyer, so people go broke just on litigation alone.
* You will lose all your friends and family. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.
* People with absolutely no experience handling that huge amount of money lose it hand over fist. The vast majority of jackpot winners go broke.
Let's see...legal persecution, no friends or loves ones, and bankruptcy. Nope! If you have to win at all, you're better off with the 10 mil. But you'd be best off not buying the ticket at all. | I'm going to tentatively agree with you, but for a different reason.
From what I recall, most lottery winners lose all their money within a couple years. If this is true, I would argue one person going bankrupt is better than 10 people going bankrupt.
Of course that does bring up the question, if 7/10 people go bankrupt after winning, is it better to have 3 successful people and 7 non successful people, or one person with a 70% chance of failure?
(I made up the 7/10 statistic for my hypothetical scenario) | 5qyya8 | CMV: In the lottery, it is worse to share the jackpot than it is to win the entire jackpot | For example, if there is a $200 million jackpot, it is worse if 20 people win it and thus you get $10 million each than it is to win the entire $200 million jackpot. I keep telling people this, people keep saying, "Well no" but they fail to refute my main argument so here it is:
The more money you have, the more freedom you get. $10 million can get you a nice house, nice car, allow you to fly first class sometimes but not all the time, ensure no emergency can destroy your life, etc. However wouldn't it be better to win the entire $200 million so you can get several nice houses, several nice cars, allow you to fly first class all the time and still ensure no emergency can destroy your life? Also, before you say, "Yeah but you'll get taxed more if you have $200 million - that doesn't change the fact that the $200 million guy will still have more than the $10 million guy
| 1,485,754,936 | antilisterine | dd3964j | dd37vix | 2 | 1 |
CMV: Plato is vastly overrated and Aristotle is way better.
At the core, Aristotle argued that we should base our knowledge off observations about the world, while Plato said that the material world was unreal and we should base our beliefs on pure reason. This split divides Western Philosophy, as the debate continues through the millennia.
**For some reason.**
No modern invention was devised just by sitting around thinking about it. If you want to draw a map of a city, you have to actually *go* to the city and look around, or get that information from someone else. Evidence is what allows us to challenge our preconceptions and demonstrate things objectively. It seems to me that Platonism *encourages* you to just accept whatever preconceived notion you have about the world. His stuff isn't testable or falsifiable.
I'll admit that the idea of Forms is an interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is. Forms don't actually *exist,* because you can't perceive them or their effects. At best they're useful models, but models are only useful insofar as they actually correspond to the physical world.
Let's look at politics. Plato sat down to reason out the best way of governing and decided that the way everyone was doing it was wrong and philosophers should be in charge of everything. Biased much? Aristotle said, instead of trying to make everything perfect, let's create a space where people are free to live good lives. One of these ideas actually works in practice, and it's not the one that's "Just make me dictator of the world and everything will be great."
How about art? Plato said that art is irrational, and we should always try to be rational, therefore art corrupts the youth and should be heavily censored. Aristotle said that art helps us experience a wider range of emotions, which in practice is psychologically healthy, and therefore should be encouraged. Again, Aristotle wins.
Ethics. Plato's ideas are pretty vague, probably because he's caught up in trying to prove everything perfectly. Aristotle says, "Hey, it seems like people get into trouble when they get carried away with something, but also you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater." Then he explores different virtues and how to cultivate them, without worrying too much about their rational foundation: the fact that they work is enough. Thus, Aristotle ends up giving practical life advice while Plato doesn't.
I just don't see what good comes from Platonism, and it seems like a lot of my philosophical disagreements with people end up boiling down to that. If I disagree with an Aristotelian, we can show each other data and see who's predictions actually come true and resolve it, because our beliefs are based on the actual world. With Platonists you have to go through elaborate logic games and there's not really any way to convince them of a counterintuitive result because they care more about whether it makes sense than whether it's true.
| I'd suggest reading *The Copernican Revolution* by Thomas Kuhn. It's a super famous book used in just about every History and Philosophy of Science course, so you can probably get a used copy from Amazon for less than 5 bucks.
One of the themes of the book is that modern science was in part a rejection of Aristotelianism and a return to Platonism! Now, this seems weird when you first hear it, but it breaks down something like this:
For the Aristotelian tradition, scientific knowledge is inherently *static*. Since science consists of observation, once you have observed and adequately explained something you are basically done. Science then becomes rote memorization of the scientific principles that Aristotle himself wrote down.
But for a Platonist what really counts is knowledge of the underlying Forms that undergird this material reality and give it structure. Any explanation that consists of only physical descriptions will miss what is essential and eternal.
What this means is that for a Platonist science based on observation can be wrong, incomplete, and/or just provisional. Science based on observation requires more, it requires an explanation in terms of the eternal and essential Forms. In other words: ***it requires math***.
The idea that a mathematical description of the solar system should take precedence over empirical observation was radical, contrary to Aristotle, and required throwing over centuries of orthodoxy. After all, you can *see* the Sun move. You can *see* that orbits are circular. You can *see* that celestial bodies are perfectly spherical. So Kepler's idea that the orbits of planets were ellipses was profoundly anti-scientific, if you were an Aristotelian. It requires Platonism to accept that our mathematical descriptions of phenomena were more trustworthy than just empirical observations.
Which of those sounds more modern? | >But that's not the only interpretation, and I question whether it's the intended one
Then you honestly need to read it again. It sounds like mostly you have talked to people with a post modern interpritation of plato, rather than an actual understanding of what he said.
You have to realize that Aristotle and Plato's philosophies aren't really THAT different. Really the major difference is platonic philosophy values arguing out small differences in reason and logic, while Aristotealian philosophy put far more value on observing to acheve reason and logic. If you put them both together what you get is pretty much modern systems of science, and ordered approches to reason and logic. But at their base
> That is to say, if you interpret it as an allegory, it seems like you should base your views off observations and evidence, at which point you wind up an Aristotelian.
The thing is that Aristotle's views in turn left no room for error. Rather You observe it, your observations and explanations are truth. He didn't believe that there really could be more to it than that. That his perceptions could be flawed. Where as plato thought one could never really understand the exact truth. Both have merit and are important to understand how philosophy evolved.
But you also have to remember Aristotle didn't belive observation ruled everything. Rather for morals he viewed that people inherently knew right from wrong, and one could simply be moral through practicing listening to that inner voice to find the golden mean. I mean really from the way you described it, you don't seem to understand exactly what either author was saying.
| 5r18n3 | CMV: Plato is vastly overrated and Aristotle is way better. | At the core, Aristotle argued that we should base our knowledge off observations about the world, while Plato said that the material world was unreal and we should base our beliefs on pure reason. This split divides Western Philosophy, as the debate continues through the millennia.
**For some reason.**
No modern invention was devised just by sitting around thinking about it. If you want to draw a map of a city, you have to actually *go* to the city and look around, or get that information from someone else. Evidence is what allows us to challenge our preconceptions and demonstrate things objectively. It seems to me that Platonism *encourages* you to just accept whatever preconceived notion you have about the world. His stuff isn't testable or falsifiable.
I'll admit that the idea of Forms is an interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is. Forms don't actually *exist,* because you can't perceive them or their effects. At best they're useful models, but models are only useful insofar as they actually correspond to the physical world.
Let's look at politics. Plato sat down to reason out the best way of governing and decided that the way everyone was doing it was wrong and philosophers should be in charge of everything. Biased much? Aristotle said, instead of trying to make everything perfect, let's create a space where people are free to live good lives. One of these ideas actually works in practice, and it's not the one that's "Just make me dictator of the world and everything will be great."
How about art? Plato said that art is irrational, and we should always try to be rational, therefore art corrupts the youth and should be heavily censored. Aristotle said that art helps us experience a wider range of emotions, which in practice is psychologically healthy, and therefore should be encouraged. Again, Aristotle wins.
Ethics. Plato's ideas are pretty vague, probably because he's caught up in trying to prove everything perfectly. Aristotle says, "Hey, it seems like people get into trouble when they get carried away with something, but also you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater." Then he explores different virtues and how to cultivate them, without worrying too much about their rational foundation: the fact that they work is enough. Thus, Aristotle ends up giving practical life advice while Plato doesn't.
I just don't see what good comes from Platonism, and it seems like a lot of my philosophical disagreements with people end up boiling down to that. If I disagree with an Aristotelian, we can show each other data and see who's predictions actually come true and resolve it, because our beliefs are based on the actual world. With Platonists you have to go through elaborate logic games and there's not really any way to convince them of a counterintuitive result because they care more about whether it makes sense than whether it's true.
| 1,485,788,565 | zuzak427 | dd3to6h | dd3qo5x | 9 | 2 |
CMV: There is no educational benefit to teaching the Big Bang theory in schools.
When it comes down to it, the only majors that would benefit in the slightest from being taught the Big Bang theory are those who go to seminary (which, I wouldn't say the teaching helped) or those who go into astrophysics (which are very few and isn't really relative to what most astrophysics will be studying/doing in their careers)
For that reason, what difference does it make to 99.99999% of students? It's sole purpose is to undermine the teaching of the church, that God created the universe.
Please keep in mind that I do not believe that God created the universe, I am not a Christian and I think the Big Bang theory is the most likely scenario for the creation of the universe. (Or at least part of it, my prevailing thought is there are unknown reasons why anti-matter and matter break apart and this happens all over the universe. Our "big bang" was just one instance of this phenomenon)
Also, the Big Bang is entirely separate from evolution. While the reasons for teaching evolution are also dubious, I think the information related to evolution may be used by many more fields.
So, with that said about my view, I still insist that there is no (besides those stated above) educational benefit to teaching the Big Bang.
Change my view | >For that reason, what difference does it make to 99.99999% of students? It's sole purpose is to undermine the teaching of the church, that God created the universe.
Is that not purpose enough? Children will naturally ask themselves how it all started, giving them an answer seems like a good think to teach, no?
And with the church spreading an alternate answer that is heavily indoctrinated into children, it is a good idea to at least give them the option to reconsider and think for themselves which answer sounds better.
Not all of education is about preparing you to be a cog in the economy, it is also about stuff that children want to know about.
In school you also learn about constellations and ancient societies and cool animals, wen you really do not need that knowledge for most jobs. | History classes is about human history, not "everything" history
| 5r1d5o | CMV: There is no educational benefit to teaching the Big Bang theory in schools. | When it comes down to it, the only majors that would benefit in the slightest from being taught the Big Bang theory are those who go to seminary (which, I wouldn't say the teaching helped) or those who go into astrophysics (which are very few and isn't really relative to what most astrophysics will be studying/doing in their careers)
For that reason, what difference does it make to 99.99999% of students? It's sole purpose is to undermine the teaching of the church, that God created the universe.
Please keep in mind that I do not believe that God created the universe, I am not a Christian and I think the Big Bang theory is the most likely scenario for the creation of the universe. (Or at least part of it, my prevailing thought is there are unknown reasons why anti-matter and matter break apart and this happens all over the universe. Our "big bang" was just one instance of this phenomenon)
Also, the Big Bang is entirely separate from evolution. While the reasons for teaching evolution are also dubious, I think the information related to evolution may be used by many more fields.
So, with that said about my view, I still insist that there is no (besides those stated above) educational benefit to teaching the Big Bang.
Change my view | 1,485,789,815 | One_Winged_Rook | dd3n5m6 | dd3n4ne | 6 | 4 |
CMV: The Pro-Choice position will become politically and morally indefensible with the progress of technology
A prominent evangelical author at the March for Life last Friday said this in an [interview with the *Atlantic*] (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/eric-metaxas-trump/514898/):
*I think the science has so changed the debate that it will change the views of most Americans. I really think we’re at that point with sonogram imagery and a lot of the science that’s coming out, it’s getting harder and harder to deny that [a fetus] is a person.*
I believe that his insight is correct, and the progress of medical technology, including ultrasound technology and also the improvement in our ability to care for premature babies, has helped the Pro-Life movement to survive (and even grow in influence) decades after losing *Roe v. Wade*.
When I think about the likely progress of technology, I can only envision a future where ultrasound technology improves, allowing people to see fetuses even more clearly as persons deserving state protection, where contraception improves, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and decreasing the demand for abortion, and where neonatal care improves, pushing the limit of viability earlier and earlier in pregnancy and making abortion both illegal and immoral at earlier stages.
These trends in technology can be seen in statistics for abortion, which reached their lowest level this past year, which researches attribute at least partially to [a rise in contraceptive use] (https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2017/01/abortion-incidence-and-service-availability-united-states-2014). It is easier than ever to get effective birth control, and this trend is likely to continue - with possible breakthroughs like [better IUDs] (http://synapse.ucsf.edu/articles/2017/01/20/resurgence-iuds), [morning-after pills] (http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/eceffect.html), or even [male birth control] (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects).
Also, neonatal care has been getting better and better, allowing [more premature babies to survive even as early as 22-24 weeks] (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2434683). States are increasingly using this data to justify [20-week abortion bans] (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/kentucky-abortion-bills-pass/).
The future development of neonatal care will only bring better and better care for babies that are born earlier and earlier. The future development of contraception will only bring easier and more effective methods of family planning. The abortion rate will continue to drop, and the average voter will become more likely to know someone with a premature baby than to know someone who has had an abortion. Voters will see contraception as an issue of personal responsibility, and will have less and less sympathy for women seeking abortions. These factors are all pushing more people towards the Pro-Life position even as society becomes more generally progressive on other issues.
The staying power of the Pro-Life movement is reflected in public opinion polls. It is remarkable how [public opinion on gay marriage] (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/) has shifted dramatically over the past two decades, while [public opinion on abortion] (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/) has barely changed. Also, there is a notable 30-point spread in opinions on gay marriage between millennials and older voters, while the spread is only about 5% for opinions on abortion. Unlike other social issues, the abortion debate is not going to die out with the older generation.
So what is the end game?
At some point in the near future (maybe in a few decades), contraception will become 99.999% effective, probably with some kind of shot or implant that doesn't require a daily pill or anything that can be easily forgotten or interrupts the moment. At that point, it will be politically difficult to advocate for abortion outside of cases of rape or the life of the mother.
At some point in the far future (this could take 100 years), an embryo or fetus will be viable outside the womb at any stage of pregnancy once technology is developed that can provide functions similar to that of the mother's placenta. At that point, it will be hard to morally justify any abortion because a fetus could be carried to term artificially and then given up for adoption.
I can't see how abortion could remain legal, outside of the context of rape and health exceptions, in either of those technological scenarios. Medical technology is inevitably progressing in this direction, so won't the Pro-Life position eventually win?
Change my view. | The pro choice position is only tangentially related to fetus personhood. The bigger question is about bodily autonomy.
Suppose I have a disease, and if I don't get a new kidney from *you specifically*, I will die. Should you be forced to give me your kidney to save my life? Or is your right to do what you want with your own organs more important?
The fact that I'm a person is only a small fraction of the debate. Technology won't end the debate until it ends the need for a womb all together. | >When abortions are no longer needed, thus the Pro-Choice people no longer want abortions, doesn't everyone win?
Won't the Pro-Choice folks still want bodily autonomy and won't removing the viable fetus deny that?
>In the future you're describing, no one will be thinking "Damn!! If only this perfect contraception wasn't preventing me from getting knocked up and getting an abortion!"
That would be a great future, but for interests of this discussion, can we imagine a timeline in which contraception is not perfect, but we have the ability to keep a fetus alive from the moment of conception? | 5r1mqe | CMV: The Pro-Choice position will become politically and morally indefensible with the progress of technology | A prominent evangelical author at the March for Life last Friday said this in an [interview with the *Atlantic*] (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/eric-metaxas-trump/514898/):
*I think the science has so changed the debate that it will change the views of most Americans. I really think we’re at that point with sonogram imagery and a lot of the science that’s coming out, it’s getting harder and harder to deny that [a fetus] is a person.*
I believe that his insight is correct, and the progress of medical technology, including ultrasound technology and also the improvement in our ability to care for premature babies, has helped the Pro-Life movement to survive (and even grow in influence) decades after losing *Roe v. Wade*.
When I think about the likely progress of technology, I can only envision a future where ultrasound technology improves, allowing people to see fetuses even more clearly as persons deserving state protection, where contraception improves, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and decreasing the demand for abortion, and where neonatal care improves, pushing the limit of viability earlier and earlier in pregnancy and making abortion both illegal and immoral at earlier stages.
These trends in technology can be seen in statistics for abortion, which reached their lowest level this past year, which researches attribute at least partially to [a rise in contraceptive use] (https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2017/01/abortion-incidence-and-service-availability-united-states-2014). It is easier than ever to get effective birth control, and this trend is likely to continue - with possible breakthroughs like [better IUDs] (http://synapse.ucsf.edu/articles/2017/01/20/resurgence-iuds), [morning-after pills] (http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/eceffect.html), or even [male birth control] (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects).
Also, neonatal care has been getting better and better, allowing [more premature babies to survive even as early as 22-24 weeks] (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2434683). States are increasingly using this data to justify [20-week abortion bans] (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/kentucky-abortion-bills-pass/).
The future development of neonatal care will only bring better and better care for babies that are born earlier and earlier. The future development of contraception will only bring easier and more effective methods of family planning. The abortion rate will continue to drop, and the average voter will become more likely to know someone with a premature baby than to know someone who has had an abortion. Voters will see contraception as an issue of personal responsibility, and will have less and less sympathy for women seeking abortions. These factors are all pushing more people towards the Pro-Life position even as society becomes more generally progressive on other issues.
The staying power of the Pro-Life movement is reflected in public opinion polls. It is remarkable how [public opinion on gay marriage] (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/) has shifted dramatically over the past two decades, while [public opinion on abortion] (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/) has barely changed. Also, there is a notable 30-point spread in opinions on gay marriage between millennials and older voters, while the spread is only about 5% for opinions on abortion. Unlike other social issues, the abortion debate is not going to die out with the older generation.
So what is the end game?
At some point in the near future (maybe in a few decades), contraception will become 99.999% effective, probably with some kind of shot or implant that doesn't require a daily pill or anything that can be easily forgotten or interrupts the moment. At that point, it will be politically difficult to advocate for abortion outside of cases of rape or the life of the mother.
At some point in the far future (this could take 100 years), an embryo or fetus will be viable outside the womb at any stage of pregnancy once technology is developed that can provide functions similar to that of the mother's placenta. At that point, it will be hard to morally justify any abortion because a fetus could be carried to term artificially and then given up for adoption.
I can't see how abortion could remain legal, outside of the context of rape and health exceptions, in either of those technological scenarios. Medical technology is inevitably progressing in this direction, so won't the Pro-Life position eventually win?
Change my view. | 1,485,792,419 | DjTj81 | dd3rg0l | dd3q212 | 13 | 3 |
CMV: Star Wars is average at best.
*Star Wars*, is literally ok. I genuinely believe, that only two of the 8 films released thus far are any good, and even then there's nothing incredible about them. The story, itself is incredibly simplistic. It's the same cliched chosen one story that prevails through all of fiction. It doesn't really have many interesting themes, or really many interesting characters. It's not particularly well acted either. Alright, so fine it's a dumb action blockbuster. I'd let slide, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the films don't even work at that.
*IV*: Incredibly poorly paced. Starts off okay, but really gets boring as it goes on. Probably the blandest of the lot. Really not very cinematic - and don't give me "it was made in 1977" as an excuse because *2001: A Space Odyssey* came out 9 years earlier, and doesn't feel dated at all.
*V*: This is the one that I actually like! This one manages to be cinematic, and Han and Leia's storyline actually manages to hold actual weight. "I am your father" scene is pretty damn good too. This one also has pretty decent pacing. It's a solid B+
*VI*: Some of the stuff that worked in *Empire* is back, and is certainly more enjoyable than *A New Hope*, but has a really silly middle act. It's not bad, but it's not that good either.
*I*: Not only is this total shit, but you can basically skip all of it anyway.
*II*: Painfully awful. I don't think I even need to justify this, as the fanbase agrees here.
*III*: Sure, the dialogues awful. Sure, the acting is shit. Now this film is shit, but unlike *A New Hope* It's not boring. Minor award for ironic entertainment value.
*VII*: Hey, I actually like this one! People's main criticism is that it's the same story as *A New Hope*, but for me to be mad at its unoriginality would require me enjoy *A New Hope* in the first place. This is like *IV*, but doesn't have awful pacing and actually feels like an exiting experience.
*Rouge One*: uh yeah I left this film remembering literally none of the main characters. It felt dull and uninspired.
So, I think 2.5/8 are good. Huh.
So, I'll go and see VIII because with Rian Johnson at the helm and following from VII I do think it may very well be good. However, I am really baffled by why this film has such a legendary status. To me, the best things about *Star Wars* are their iconic elements, such as Williams score, the opening crawl, lightsabers etc. This is all good shit, but I feel that its status is really a product of marketing and nostalgia, rather than genuine artistry. | I'll start out by saying that the prequals are not very good. The only reason why they are acknowledged is because, well, they give you pieces of a story. Almost no one will defend them as good movies. However, Star Wars as a whole, is something that is deserving of it's legacy and impact.
**The "Chosen One"**
I'll start by addressing this. First thing I would say is that this is more of an archetype or some kind of model for a story teller. The idea that an individual suddenly has responsibility and a mission thrust upon him is a type of story rather than a them or an idea that is overdone. You can see this in stories as far back as "The Sword in the Stone" all the way up to "The Lord of the Rings." They set up a situation (usually) around a certain conflict that they are suddenly trusted into being a part of. You see it almost everywhere but what makes a "chosen one" story memorable is that internal conflict and even external struggle they experience as they suddenly must come to terms with the fact that their whole life is changing. Further more it sells the idea of being relatable. Instead of seeing someone who has a gifted ability to do this or that, we get to be an audience to a story where an every day Joe who you would never expect anything of gets to be the hero. There's exceptions to that quality, obviously, but there's something kind of beautiful about that. While this doesn't make Star Wars a good movie just because it fits into that archetype, I would say that it makes it not cliche.
**Simplicity**
I don't know if you can relate to this but my friends love board games. I walk into their dorm room and they have pieces, cards, dice, more cards, and figurines all spread across a massive table while they talk about what's going on. I hear this conversation and I have to ask "What is going on?" They then proceed to spend an eternity struggling to try and explain to me how all the rules and pieces of the game fit together while I'm hopelessly lost. If I want to understand what's going on, I will have to sit down and have someone teach me. One thing Star Wars gets right is it's simplicity. A child could start it half way through and understand what is going on. They make the overall idea of good vs evil very apparent. There's the Dark Side vs. The Light. Blue/Green sabers vs Red. Jedi vs. Sith. You don't have to have a lot of critical thinking to understand what is immediately going on which means that anyone could just jump into it. If you don't know what's going on, it could be explained to a 10 year old in 5 minutes. "This guy was supposed to be good but then he became bad. Right now, he is fighting his master who taught him almost everything he knows", *boom* you can watch the rest of the movie. When it comes to a genre like science fiction, there's a lot of room to be really complex with your story line and have all kinds of details that make it difficult to get into but you can watch a star wars movie from almost anywhere. You don't even have to watch them in order.
**Uniqueness**
Although you said that the whole "it was 1977" is not an excuse, keep in mind that the hype for this movie is from that time. There wasn't a whole lot like this at the time. This was something new and refreshing which is something that is kind of hard to do. If I told you I was writing a new science fiction story that was about intergalactic wars, you can pretty much guess half the content of the movie. Aliens, laser guns, big space ships, you get it. The Star Wars series contains all these but still managed to tell a refreshing story through that. While today it might not seem as refreshing, back then it was something new.
**Depth**
I don't know if when you were criticizing Star Wars as being over exaggerated in it's greatness you were referring to just the live action movies or if you were talking about the universe as a whole so I will assume the latter just to be safe. Remember what I said about Star Wars being simplistic? Well it is but what else is pretty cool is that it has an enormous amount of depth to it that gets into more complex ideas. The movies don't even scratch the surface of the universe as a whole. There's also The Clone Wars series which is a lot better than you'd expect but along with that, [there's more books than you could imagine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_books) that tell different stories that exist within the star wars universe (some aren't cannon though, but still good). The movies never tell you about Darth Bane, or explain what The Rule of Two is, or tell you about the past of Obi Wan and Satine, or tell you about exactly why Yoda went to Degobah. The movies (half of which no one will argue are bad) are merely a tip of the iceburg of what is the massive universe that Star Wars takes place in.
**Rogue One**
I feel like this needs its own category. Rogue One felt very different from the other movies and there's a reason. Rogue One was not necessarily a story about a singular hero but more about the tale of a courageous group of individuals. This deviates from the whole "Chosen One" archetype. I know you can't remember any names but you could probably describe some of the characters. The girl who's father was taken away by the empire, the blind man who relied on the force more than his senses, the pilot who was nervous but brave, or the russian (?) man who's life had been devoted to fighting in the rebellion and suffered his own internal conflicts. **Spoilers ahead** In the end, they all risk their lives to steal the plans to the death star and even though everyone of them die, they carried out an impossible mission and sacrificed their lives for a greater good. In the end, when we tell the legends of heroics, it is the actions of the individuals that we are to remember, not their name. This movie played out to be almost a retelling of a legend. A recount of a war story that people would tell their children about. That, to me, is cool to see a science fiction series carry out a display of sacrifice in such a poetic way
**Closing thoughts**
Everyone has their tastes and lord knows there's things that are popular that I can't stand one bit so if you don't like star wars than there's nothing wrong with that and there might not be anything anyone can say to you that will change that. I hope that I gave a little bit of insight to my thoughts on why this universe is so cool. I'd love to write more but I gotta run. Peace homie.
P.S. Most people only like 4/8 anyways so being 2.5/8 isn't so bad | I won't try to convince you to like it, but Star Wars is definitely special in a few ways, and I'm sure others can think of more.
Onething that I think is special is that Ep.4. is a *Space Opera* more than a traditional Sci-Fi film, and is also arguably the most famous Sci-Fi film of all time. It manages to be both genre defining as well as an exception to the genre at the same time.
Star Wars was also the first film franchise to really capitalise on the toy/games market, which is something that almost all subsequent fantasy films have cashed in on since.
| 5r2955 | CMV: Star Wars is average at best. | *Star Wars*, is literally ok. I genuinely believe, that only two of the 8 films released thus far are any good, and even then there's nothing incredible about them. The story, itself is incredibly simplistic. It's the same cliched chosen one story that prevails through all of fiction. It doesn't really have many interesting themes, or really many interesting characters. It's not particularly well acted either. Alright, so fine it's a dumb action blockbuster. I'd let slide, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the films don't even work at that.
*IV*: Incredibly poorly paced. Starts off okay, but really gets boring as it goes on. Probably the blandest of the lot. Really not very cinematic - and don't give me "it was made in 1977" as an excuse because *2001: A Space Odyssey* came out 9 years earlier, and doesn't feel dated at all.
*V*: This is the one that I actually like! This one manages to be cinematic, and Han and Leia's storyline actually manages to hold actual weight. "I am your father" scene is pretty damn good too. This one also has pretty decent pacing. It's a solid B+
*VI*: Some of the stuff that worked in *Empire* is back, and is certainly more enjoyable than *A New Hope*, but has a really silly middle act. It's not bad, but it's not that good either.
*I*: Not only is this total shit, but you can basically skip all of it anyway.
*II*: Painfully awful. I don't think I even need to justify this, as the fanbase agrees here.
*III*: Sure, the dialogues awful. Sure, the acting is shit. Now this film is shit, but unlike *A New Hope* It's not boring. Minor award for ironic entertainment value.
*VII*: Hey, I actually like this one! People's main criticism is that it's the same story as *A New Hope*, but for me to be mad at its unoriginality would require me enjoy *A New Hope* in the first place. This is like *IV*, but doesn't have awful pacing and actually feels like an exiting experience.
*Rouge One*: uh yeah I left this film remembering literally none of the main characters. It felt dull and uninspired.
So, I think 2.5/8 are good. Huh.
So, I'll go and see VIII because with Rian Johnson at the helm and following from VII I do think it may very well be good. However, I am really baffled by why this film has such a legendary status. To me, the best things about *Star Wars* are their iconic elements, such as Williams score, the opening crawl, lightsabers etc. This is all good shit, but I feel that its status is really a product of marketing and nostalgia, rather than genuine artistry. | 1,485,798,254 | meur123 | dd45kqt | dd42rjd | 4 | 2 |
CMV: Our evolution of technology is going too far
Nowadays, a normal day for me includes talking to my apple watch or asking my Amazon Echo a question. I have become very dependent on these technologies, and in a way, the responses that they give me have somewhat of a control on what I do in my life. A while ago I just took this for granted, but recently I have begun to realize the extreme danger that we are putting ourselves in when we start to depend on technology to guide us.
I recently came across a TED Talk that outlined the thought process of an engineer who realistically believed that a supercomputer could be developed before the 22nd century. In this situation, he was referring to a supercomputer as a computer that is even more powerful than a human mind. While he was very excited for the numerous pros that could come from a machine that can do things the human mind isn’t even able to, I have my worries. This video prompted me to do some digging, and I found some disturbing realities that could come from a computer with power over humans. For example, what if we prompted this computer to find a solution to a disease running rampant in our corn. The solution it comes up with is to kill off the entire human race because then we would no longer be dependent on corn. To a human this probably sounds stupid and many would say that we obviously wouldn’t do that, but a computer sees this as a logical solution that would solve the problem.
The size of our skull limits the potential of the human mind, but a computer can be built as large as warehouse, or even bigger, and this is why a supercomputer is a realistic possibility. The pros that could come from it are amazing. It could run thousands of tests on certain diseases in seconds that would take weeks for humans. It would be able to come up with more efficient solutions to problems plaguing our modern world, but that means it could also take action and harm humans if it sees that as a solution to a certain issue.
I am scared of what could come from a power with a mind greater than ours. While I would love to see technology continue to expand and make our lives easier, a supercomputer is going too far. If we could find a way to implement this kind of technology with the 100% assurance that we will be safe, I could get behind it, but until that day I believe that we must be wary of the dangerous direction that our technology advancements are heading.
EDIT #1-- I am getting a lot of responses dealing with the feasibility of such an AI. While I understand that the development of this type of machine is far off and maybe even impossible, I am worried that one day we will build it and it will go wild. I am looking for a response more directed at how we can build it in a safe way instead of one that says that it isn't possible. | > In this situation, he was referring to a supercomputer as a computer that is even more powerful than a human mind.
...
> For example, what if we prompted this computer to find a solution to a disease running rampant in our corn. The solution it comes up with is to kill off the entire human race because then we would no longer be dependent on corn. To a human this probably sounds stupid and many would say that we obviously wouldn’t do that, but a computer sees this as a logical solution that would solve the problem.
As someone who actually studies AI and machine learning, I can assure you that these concerns are highly unrealistic, and seem to be informed more by bad science fiction than reality.
It is true, computers today are "more powerful than a human mind" in that they are capable of doing - very quickly - things that human beings can't, like complex mathematics. However, we are very, very far from creating a computer that is recognizably *sentient* in the way we recognize human beings to be. In fact, we don't even know if strong AI is *feasible*.
As it exists today, AI methods are used for pattern recognition and data analysis. They are tools we use to inform our decisions, and even when they act autonomously (like in self-driving cars or high frequency trading systems), they behave according to strategies predetermined by human beings. | > he was referring to a supercomputer as a computer that is even more powerful than a human mind
We already have those. You they could add and multiply more numbers in a few hours than you could by hand in the rest of your life.
I think you really need to look more into AI research, any attempts of creating a computer with executive function(ability to make their own decisions) is pretty contrived and unrealistic. For the foreseeable future computers are going to be doing exactly what we program them to, just with a lot of complicated probability and decision trees that might make it look like they are in control. | 5r2dx9 | CMV: Our evolution of technology is going too far | Nowadays, a normal day for me includes talking to my apple watch or asking my Amazon Echo a question. I have become very dependent on these technologies, and in a way, the responses that they give me have somewhat of a control on what I do in my life. A while ago I just took this for granted, but recently I have begun to realize the extreme danger that we are putting ourselves in when we start to depend on technology to guide us.
I recently came across a TED Talk that outlined the thought process of an engineer who realistically believed that a supercomputer could be developed before the 22nd century. In this situation, he was referring to a supercomputer as a computer that is even more powerful than a human mind. While he was very excited for the numerous pros that could come from a machine that can do things the human mind isn’t even able to, I have my worries. This video prompted me to do some digging, and I found some disturbing realities that could come from a computer with power over humans. For example, what if we prompted this computer to find a solution to a disease running rampant in our corn. The solution it comes up with is to kill off the entire human race because then we would no longer be dependent on corn. To a human this probably sounds stupid and many would say that we obviously wouldn’t do that, but a computer sees this as a logical solution that would solve the problem.
The size of our skull limits the potential of the human mind, but a computer can be built as large as warehouse, or even bigger, and this is why a supercomputer is a realistic possibility. The pros that could come from it are amazing. It could run thousands of tests on certain diseases in seconds that would take weeks for humans. It would be able to come up with more efficient solutions to problems plaguing our modern world, but that means it could also take action and harm humans if it sees that as a solution to a certain issue.
I am scared of what could come from a power with a mind greater than ours. While I would love to see technology continue to expand and make our lives easier, a supercomputer is going too far. If we could find a way to implement this kind of technology with the 100% assurance that we will be safe, I could get behind it, but until that day I believe that we must be wary of the dangerous direction that our technology advancements are heading.
EDIT #1-- I am getting a lot of responses dealing with the feasibility of such an AI. While I understand that the development of this type of machine is far off and maybe even impossible, I am worried that one day we will build it and it will go wild. I am looking for a response more directed at how we can build it in a safe way instead of one that says that it isn't possible. | 1,485,799,516 | rdrapryn | dd3x43h | dd3w3ow | 19 | 4 |
CMV: My personal vote does not and will not ever matter in a presidential election
So, as the title says, I believe that it will always be pointless for me to personally vote in a presidential election.
For example, during the 2016 election, I wanted Hillary to win over Trump. However, I did not go out and vote for her because my vote would not matter against the millions of people who did vote.
I'm not saying voting itself is pointless. If everyone were to stop voting, it would be a major issue. I'm asking what the point is for me to get out and personally vote. If it's just to make myself feel better and show my support for the candidate I want to win, then I believe that is pointless.
| No one raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood. Hardly any state has much more than 50% voter turnout. If everyone who thought this actually got out and voted anyway, they could literally do anything they wanted.
But I see your point, so vote third-party. What your vote can do is show the country that they don't HAVE to keep choosing between the same two terrible options. Get a third party to 5% and they become a serious player, which forces the other two to stop being such ideologues and start coming up with actual answers to things. | To address this point in particular
> I'm not saying voting itself is pointless. If everyone were to stop voting, it would be a major issue. I'm asking what the point is for me to get out and personally vote.
The trouble is that this kind of thinking is logically inconsistent. If every individual instance of voting is pointless, then voting is pointless. I'm assuming you care about being a rational person, and part of that means acting how you believe people should act. Otherwise you're essentially saying that you're an exception to the rule for no particular reason and logic doesn't apply to you. | 5r2jyb | CMV: My personal vote does not and will not ever matter in a presidential election | So, as the title says, I believe that it will always be pointless for me to personally vote in a presidential election.
For example, during the 2016 election, I wanted Hillary to win over Trump. However, I did not go out and vote for her because my vote would not matter against the millions of people who did vote.
I'm not saying voting itself is pointless. If everyone were to stop voting, it would be a major issue. I'm asking what the point is for me to get out and personally vote. If it's just to make myself feel better and show my support for the candidate I want to win, then I believe that is pointless.
| 1,485,801,052 | jamsterbuggy | dd3xkbo | dd3xdjb | 14 | 11 |
CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump.
I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, "I wish Donald Trump would die!" and then somebody else responds, "No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!"
I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was "harassed" and demanded an apology from the cast.
The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, "If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it."
I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). | > I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats
I think the two are mutually exclusive.
Trump may need to form a coalition with Democrats on infrastructure, trade, ACA replacement, and other domestic issues because he goes against the Republican norm on many of these issues.
If it were up to traditional Republicans, they would continue NAFTA as-is, engage in the TPP, ignore infrastructure, and embrace Wall St. over Main St.
This is where I think the Democrats are currently shitting in their collective beds. They should be looking to set the ground work for deals.
For instance, if I were the House Minority Leader I would be telling my caucus the following, "Speak out against Trump on immigration, core beliefs on equal rights where Trump brings them up, and select cabinet nominees. Avoid any personal attacks. Attend the inauguration. Don't comment on silly side-tracks like election fraud and crowd side. I will work with Trump to find common ground."
Then I would go to Trump and basically make a deal. If Trump promises to work with us on ACA replacement, and veto any bills that seek to limit a woman's right to choose and marriage equality (social issues that Trump sees as settled law) then we will work with him on economic issues providing bipartisan support that attempts to show him as a centrist.
If the Democrats continue down their current path they will only push Trump to the right on issues where he is currently near the center. If Pence were the president, he would completely ignore the Democrats. Given that 2018 will likely be a tough year for Democrats in the Senate with the seats that are contested, they would be better served to pull Trump to the center than push him to the right. | >But what does that actually accomplish, apart from making them hang a little sign up that also says "We're a private club". That just sounds like making them take a slight loophole, while not actually helping anything.
IANAL, but presumably, if they're not a *bona fide* private club, you could sue them. This pressures business to not discriminate, and gives people a potential recourse if they're harmed by the discrimination (e.g., if the only grocery store in town is discriminatory)
> That aside, even if you claim to serve "the public", I still think that it's your decision if you decide to exclude a certain subset of that public, for whatever reason you want to. It's your business, not mine, and you're the one who has to live with the consequences of how it does. If your business fails, I'm not going to be helping you out, so why should I get a say in how it's run?
Well, for one, businesses are indirectly supported by a large variety of public expenditure. Infrastructure, the legal system, & fire and police services all amount to publicly funded subsidies. So in a sense you're always helping out all businesses by virtue of paying taxes. | 5r2x52 | CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump. | I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, "I wish Donald Trump would die!" and then somebody else responds, "No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!"
I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was "harassed" and demanded an apology from the cast.
The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, "If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it."
I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). | 1,485,804,392 | Aravaen | dd44v9k | dd441u2 | 15 | 2 |
CMV: It's morally inconsistent to think abortion is murder, but also believe it's up to women.
A couple of weeks ago I watched a video from the 2012 VP debates in the US where a question came up on abortion, and I have a real problem with Joe Biden's answer to it. The clip in question (starts at 2:53): https://youtu.be/KOpb9irG3Cw?t=173
>>>My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves - people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a, we call, *De Fide* doctrine. **Life begins at conception, that's the churches judgement, and I accept it my personal life, but I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims, and Jews, and uh, I just refuse to impose that on others**, unlike my friend there, the congressman [Ryan]. I do not believe we have a right to tell other people, that - women - that they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view and the supreme court *sic* and I'm not gonna interfere with that.
My specific problem is that if you believe
1. Life begins at conception
2. Ending a human life deliberately is murder
3. Murder is wrong (kind of obvious but I feel like I should include it)
4. The right of other people not not be murdered overrules your right to bodily autonomy
then you cannot be morally consistent if you also believe anyone should be allowed to have an abortion.
We don't know for sure that Biden thinks not being murdered is a more important right than other people being allowed to do what they want but considering he has a law degree, I think it's a fairly safe assumption.
edit: fixed a typo | But legally abortion is not murder. Ethically it is murder according to Catholic doctrine, and he holds (contrary to Catholic teaching) that Catholic doctrine applies only to Catholics. He likely holds a relativist (and heretical, and extremely common) position under which a faithful Catholic would ethically be committing murder by having an abortion but an atheist would not. | I believe it's premise #4 where most people will take exception if anywhere. Even to the strictest libertarian, one must acknowledge that the abortion debate pits the rights of one person against the rights of another, and so you DO have to decide if a woman's bodily autonomy overrides a fetus's right to live. Those that are pro-choice believe that yes, it does. That is not morally inconsistent, it is simply making a choice in a moral dilemma that everyone has to face if they're going to take a position in the debate. | 5r34tq | CMV: It's morally inconsistent to think abortion is murder, but also believe it's up to women. | A couple of weeks ago I watched a video from the 2012 VP debates in the US where a question came up on abortion, and I have a real problem with Joe Biden's answer to it. The clip in question (starts at 2:53): https://youtu.be/KOpb9irG3Cw?t=173
>>>My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves - people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a, we call, *De Fide* doctrine. **Life begins at conception, that's the churches judgement, and I accept it my personal life, but I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims, and Jews, and uh, I just refuse to impose that on others**, unlike my friend there, the congressman [Ryan]. I do not believe we have a right to tell other people, that - women - that they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view and the supreme court *sic* and I'm not gonna interfere with that.
My specific problem is that if you believe
1. Life begins at conception
2. Ending a human life deliberately is murder
3. Murder is wrong (kind of obvious but I feel like I should include it)
4. The right of other people not not be murdered overrules your right to bodily autonomy
then you cannot be morally consistent if you also believe anyone should be allowed to have an abortion.
We don't know for sure that Biden thinks not being murdered is a more important right than other people being allowed to do what they want but considering he has a law degree, I think it's a fairly safe assumption.
edit: fixed a typo | 1,485,806,403 | bearjuani | dd42hnp | dd41mlo | 10 | 1 |
CMV: Voting in elections and referendums should be opt-out, rather than opt-in.
It is my view that it is the responsibility of the government of each country to ensure that its electorate is fairly represented in elections and referendums, and the responsibility of the people to voice their views, as long as they have the option to actively abstain from the voting proceedure, should they wish.
Voter apathy, especially from the yonuger generations and ethnic minorities, presents a problem wherein politicians aren't as encouraged to create policies that benefit these demographics, but instead favour demographics which are more likely to vote in upcomming elections.
I feel that the underrepresention of these demographics could be partly fixed by introducing an opt-out system of voting, rather than the existing opt-in. An opt-out system would force people to actively make a choice about whether to vote or not, and would benefit voter turnout dramatically. As a form of penalty, I believe that a small fine, with generated money going towards improving voting infrastructure, would be appropriate.
Disclaimer: I live in the UK, so any misunderstanding to US, or other nation's electoral systems is likely the result of where I live and have been raised. I welcome your input, however.
EDIT: I should have mentioned two things: In the UK there is a postal vote system that allows people to vote early, and one of the main reasons for people not voting is having to manage their work/life schedule around getting to the polling station on the day.
EDIT: typo
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | I'm in agreement, firstly, that more needs to be done to encourage people to vote. As a fellow UK resident I too am used to seeing low turnout in elections and referendums (how would the Brexit debate have gone if everyone was required to vote?) and having studied voting systems and political engagement for some time I'm in agreement that the country has never been at a lower ebb in terms of engaging with the people who could potentially run the country. Without swerving into a completely different debate, the situation at present is that much of the liberal-left feels powerless with a Conservative majority (some even moreso with Jeremy Corbyn's control of the Labour party), and as this is a fair chunk of society, it's likely to feel disenchanted with recent polling results. The same will go for Remainers - the common thread before was 'does my vote really matter', and in light of 2015's GE and the Brexit referendum, it's hardly surprising that people feel annoyed about the way their country is being run to the point of apathy. In short, I'm in agreement with you in principle.
However, there are two main points I think bring down an opt-out strategy - and they point towards better education of our society as perhaps being a better focus to engage more people in future.
1. Making voting opt-out, referendums or elsewhere, may encourage further protest voting. While people are free to opt-out, the fact that the measure is enforced may anger a select core of voters already displeased with the way that the country is being run. In a period where we have seen the protest vote effectively win two of the most world-changing ballots in the past five years (Brexit and the US election), giving flippant voting further air to breathe may create further implications for a population who are keen to learn about the facts and make their choices on an educated basis. Some people, my argument is, will choose to vote flippantly or in protest rather than choose to opt out - regardless of how easy it is to do.
2. Will opt-out strategy really engage more votes? On the other side of the coin to my above point, if people don't want to vote, they will opt out - it's as simple as that. Active abstainees will opt out as soon as possible, while those who either care little about voting or don't want to opt out will waste their votes. As it stands, if people continue to get their facts from media bias or continue to avoid 'talking politics' altogether, an opt out strategy will do little to encourage people to actively participate.
To encourage people to actively participate in voting, referendums or otherwise, people need to be actively encouraged to do so on a basis which doesn't involve legality or necessity. As a UK citizen from a northern town I've heard it said many times : "I don't do politics". "Politics is complicated". "Politics is boring". "That doesn't affect me".
For me, the most effective way to engage more people to vote in referendums, local elections and GEs is to roll out a less formal education of the way our country works, and to appeal to poorer communities to demonstrate exactly why their vote counts as much as someone living in a high-rise up in Islington. Young people need to be better engaged with politics and the way our country is run from an earlier age. Politics is not boring - I suppose it is largely thanks to the types of politicians who are available to us that this has been perpetuated - but people need to be approached on a twofold basis. One, that their vote matters, and why, and two, that politics is far more interesting that many people give it credit for. people only got behind Boris Johnson so much because he's entertaining - but I'm drifting off a bit here.
In short:
Opt-out is great in principle, but in my opinion, it'll change little or encourage flippant protest voting. Reforming political education for young people and those at risk of being disenchanted is, I feel, a more worthwhile strategy. Arguably, the Brexit referendum was poorly rolled out to people, offering media spiel, soundbites and little ion the way of genuine, helpful education. | I think you are oversimplifying the issue. While I do not deny the fact that some demographics are underrepresented in electoral governments, I don't think that an opt out system would remedy this. I believe this for two reasons.
First, not every issue will be relevant to every voter. So some voters may abstain from voting because they do not care about an issue, see themselves as uninformed on the issue, or even as a form of protest. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you I chose not to vote in the last US presidential election due to my distaste for both major candidates and my lack of knowledge on the positions of the main third party candidates. Unless you can truly reflect every view point on an issue, you need to allow people to not vote on issues they don't feel are relevant to them. An opt-out system encourages people to vote on things they don't care about or are uninformed about, which can be detrimental to government as a whole.
My second point is that a lot of underrepresented demographics are underrepresented not because of apathy, but because voting is too great an inconvenience on their daily lives. For instance, in the US (I can't speak for the U.K.) the working poor have a lower voter turnout rate largely because they work longer hours and thus have less time to properly educate themselves on political issues. An opt-out system would just further inconvenience these people by adding even more hoops for them to jump through. | 5r3fdw | CMV: Voting in elections and referendums should be opt-out, rather than opt-in. | It is my view that it is the responsibility of the government of each country to ensure that its electorate is fairly represented in elections and referendums, and the responsibility of the people to voice their views, as long as they have the option to actively abstain from the voting proceedure, should they wish.
Voter apathy, especially from the yonuger generations and ethnic minorities, presents a problem wherein politicians aren't as encouraged to create policies that benefit these demographics, but instead favour demographics which are more likely to vote in upcomming elections.
I feel that the underrepresention of these demographics could be partly fixed by introducing an opt-out system of voting, rather than the existing opt-in. An opt-out system would force people to actively make a choice about whether to vote or not, and would benefit voter turnout dramatically. As a form of penalty, I believe that a small fine, with generated money going towards improving voting infrastructure, would be appropriate.
Disclaimer: I live in the UK, so any misunderstanding to US, or other nation's electoral systems is likely the result of where I live and have been raised. I welcome your input, however.
EDIT: I should have mentioned two things: In the UK there is a postal vote system that allows people to vote early, and one of the main reasons for people not voting is having to manage their work/life schedule around getting to the polling station on the day.
EDIT: typo
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | 1,485,809,172 | StringerBell9 | dd45zkv | dd44ac0 | 2 | 1 |
CMV: I support Donald Trump
In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train.
Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.
I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.
In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.
As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.
Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.
If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. | Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency.
I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader.
Kellyanne Conway's [statements at Meet the Press](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/how-kellyanne-conway-ushered-in-the-era-of-alternative-facts/?utm_term=.0c498fa646f5) are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it "for a greater good."
His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to "win." In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me." It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him.
If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public?
Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign.
Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it.
I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other.
*edit: grammar
|
> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws.
If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws. But he’s not just some joe-schmoe, he’s the fucking president of our country. You’re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don’t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him. Come on, you’re better than that and America is better than that.
> Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe.
You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing “commitment”. Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.
> The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved.
Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up. Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?
> I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.
Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem. He’s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard!
> I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.
Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn’t have you convinced that he can do anything about it. Why support him then?
> As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.
Here, you are basically bragging that Trump’s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won’t end up triggering World War III. Why are your standards so insanely low?!
> Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.
So as long as a candidate isn’t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them
> If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.
I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters. Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard. Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school? Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan? You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy? As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.
| 5r4prs | CMV: I support Donald Trump | In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train.
Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.
I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.
In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.
As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.
Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.
If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. | 1,485,821,977 | LordKX | dd4lgyo | dd4h1nh | 1,404 | 61 |
CMV: The United States is converting to a monarchy, and nobody with power is doing anything to stop it.
After November 8th, I was of the belief that the US, and the world, was in one of three situations:
- We have absolutely nothing to worry about.
- We have something to worry about, but checks and balances will prevail and control the damage
- We are all in great and grave danger, and this republic will either become the very authoritarianism we have claimed to oppose all these years, or compromise its position in the world so severely that it crumbles.
The optimist in me held on dearly to scenario 1, but those hopes were dashed rather quickly. Scenario 2 seems to have arrived upon us, but I fear that it could be scenario 3 after all. Trump is proving as destructive as everyone feared, and only two Republicans (Graham and McCain) seem to notice that there is a problem. If any Democrats other than Warren and Sanders (who is Independent, anyways) are trying to oppose him, it doesn't seem like they're having any effect.
Our Republic is a ship on fire, and the crew seem to just be watching it burn. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong, and why.
Edit: People have pointed out a poor choice of vocabulary in the title. "Dictatorship" or "autocracy" would be more accurate descriptors.
| Simmer down. All you're seeing is what happens when one party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. It hasn't happened in six years, and never holds very long. When Obama was first elected he pushed through all kinds of things that my Republican friends hated and they were ready to declare us on the verge of turning into the Soviet Union.
I'm going to tell you exactly what I told them: Relax. History says that the ruling party in such situation takes a beat down in the first mid terms. Then we go back to gridlock and the two sides blaming each other for it. The minority party is really motivated to get out the vote after being pushed around for a couple years. The ruling party voters get apathetic and figure they got this and don't. Then the gridlock.
Even if you think everything President Trump has done so far has been the worst ever (which would be really odd since he literally hasn't done anything that something either exactly the same or very similar has been done before - at least not yet) take a breathe and realize elections matter. Whether you like the policies or not Trump's party, of which he is the leader now, won a lot of elections. Again they have full control of Congress, and the White House (and are in a position to be king makers in the Supreme Court). If Trump *didn't* and/or *wasn't* able to do many of things he told his supporters he'd do, his supporters could rightly say, "Elections don't matter. We won everything and yet we can't get what we voted for." *That* would be concerning. *That* would be evidence of a ruling class and the people having no influence. *That* would be a autocracy.
If you don't like the current policies, or even if you're fine with some but don't like the White House to be able to push it's agenda with such ease, go out and engage in peaceful grassroots efforts to get opposition candidates elected in two years. In the mean time welcome to democracy - where elections actually do have consequences. A party you don't prefer winning a lot of them and then wielding the power they grant to do things they told those who voted for them they would is sometimes part of that. | We aren't, Trump is using the powers of the Imperial presidency that every president has willfully expanded. The Radlibs are screaming because they expected Trump to be like Obama and drop his promises.
We used to seperate powers for a reason but now the crown is on Trumps head and we all willfully put it there by ceding our duties of Republican citizenship.
Trump is doing exactly what he promised, his life ensures a Nationalist state, his death or overthrow would ensure civil war and a fascist backing. Choose which you'd like
Graham is a loser and Mccain is spineless, idiot one couldn't get 1% in a vote and idiot 2 couldn't beat obama.
The republic is burning bright, this is exactly what I wanted to see, the division between the people grows fiercer and fiercer which is a positive to push the country towards fundemental change. It isn't a Monarchy though
| 5r50w1 | CMV: The United States is converting to a monarchy, and nobody with power is doing anything to stop it. | After November 8th, I was of the belief that the US, and the world, was in one of three situations:
- We have absolutely nothing to worry about.
- We have something to worry about, but checks and balances will prevail and control the damage
- We are all in great and grave danger, and this republic will either become the very authoritarianism we have claimed to oppose all these years, or compromise its position in the world so severely that it crumbles.
The optimist in me held on dearly to scenario 1, but those hopes were dashed rather quickly. Scenario 2 seems to have arrived upon us, but I fear that it could be scenario 3 after all. Trump is proving as destructive as everyone feared, and only two Republicans (Graham and McCain) seem to notice that there is a problem. If any Democrats other than Warren and Sanders (who is Independent, anyways) are trying to oppose him, it doesn't seem like they're having any effect.
Our Republic is a ship on fire, and the crew seem to just be watching it burn. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong, and why.
Edit: People have pointed out a poor choice of vocabulary in the title. "Dictatorship" or "autocracy" would be more accurate descriptors.
| 1,485,825,315 | rovercomeover | dd4m3v6 | dd4hv4w | 12 | -2 |
CMV: The intent on what I say is more important than how its interpreted
So I am having a tough time racking my brain over this one. I want to see what other people think. This question comes after a discussion about whether or not I was a racist person or not. The idea is scary, sure, I always though that the true racist people knew full well that they were being racist because of the intense pride for their own race and believing, truly, that the other races are inferior. I understand that there can be a bias and I fully would admit to that myself, I think bias for your own race, community, family is inherent in the typical human behaviour.
Essentially I said a sentence that was taken out of context. I made a generalizing term upon a race of people for the sake of being quick, when my **intent** was to say "in my experience, the majority of XXXX I have met have been XXX". Of course this is an anecdote to illustrate my point, I do not believe that I am racist, I do not believe that generalizing a group of people can do any good but I guess I did accidentally?.
I think that the intent in which whatever one says something is the core of whats important. That is where you can find the moral compass of the individual. Do I need to tip toe around what I say when there are sensitive subjects? I think everyone should try to put themselves into other people shoes if only to gain a little insight or context with the speaker.
| You can't expect other people to treat you according to what you *intended* to say, if you're not willing or able to explain it clearly.
A key part of (almost) any communication or management training course teaches that when there is one person delivering a message and one or more people receiving it, the ONLY thing that matters is the message received. It doesn't matter what you *intended* to ask people to do, only what they actually did.
It is solely the responsibility of the communicatOR to ensure that the message has been correctly understood - by asking questions, confirming the other person's understanding, etc.
I think this is analogous to your case.
If you said something inadvertently and through brevity that SOUNDED racist - which other people misinterpreted in a way that did not reflect your actual views, then of course that's *your* problem (assuming you don't want to be thought of that way). On realising how it has been interpreted, you should immediately take steps to clarify what you meant and apologise for any offence caused.
Of course, if your position IS actually racist (and, to be honest, your post doesn't actually rule out that possibility, but I'm choosing to assume it wasn't) then this advice won't help much...
| The traditional model of communication is as follows:
Sender encodes a message --> Sender sends the message --> Message travels through a medium --> Receiver receives the message --> Receiver decodes the message --> Receiver sends feedback to the sender
Here is a [visual model](http://i.imgur.com/TnlDznr.jpg) that more clearly demonstrates this. To apply this to your example, you thought of what you wanted to say **and** what that statement meant to you, then encoded and sent that message to the receiver. Somewhere along the way in this communication process the receiver interpreted what you said but **not** what you *meant*.
It's important to realize just how many steps are in this process, a process that happens so quickly and intuitively that we don't realize we're doing it, even though we do it dozens or hundreds of times a day. Even so, how often have you had these little misunderstandings with others? I don't mean on this scale either, just something as simple as mishearing a phone number someone is giving you and having to ask them to repeat it.
Because of this it is absolutely critical that we choose our words (and non-verbal language as well, but that's a whole other can of worms) very careful when speaking with others.
Source: Communication major that actually cared about the science of communication :) | 5r7eq6 | CMV: The intent on what I say is more important than how its interpreted | So I am having a tough time racking my brain over this one. I want to see what other people think. This question comes after a discussion about whether or not I was a racist person or not. The idea is scary, sure, I always though that the true racist people knew full well that they were being racist because of the intense pride for their own race and believing, truly, that the other races are inferior. I understand that there can be a bias and I fully would admit to that myself, I think bias for your own race, community, family is inherent in the typical human behaviour.
Essentially I said a sentence that was taken out of context. I made a generalizing term upon a race of people for the sake of being quick, when my **intent** was to say "in my experience, the majority of XXXX I have met have been XXX". Of course this is an anecdote to illustrate my point, I do not believe that I am racist, I do not believe that generalizing a group of people can do any good but I guess I did accidentally?.
I think that the intent in which whatever one says something is the core of whats important. That is where you can find the moral compass of the individual. Do I need to tip toe around what I say when there are sensitive subjects? I think everyone should try to put themselves into other people shoes if only to gain a little insight or context with the speaker.
| 1,485,858,352 | specialtard | dd50llu | dd50kw8 | 17 | 1 |
CMV: We will never reach a future of common equal rights, good living standards and peace
This is something that has been bugging me for a while.
One of the things that brings meaning to my life is working towards improving this world - Because all of my effort can bring a better future for us all. Kind of like a butterfly effect. One small positive thing can go far.
Yet, it's so much easier for us to shift towards greed, lust for power, feeling superior over others, while positive attributes requiere constant effort and work. Justifying unethical actions because the end justifies the means. While I agree that might sometimes be the case, people often use that to push their own agendas. I mean, even when you think you're doing good, that might not be the case.
Which is when my conclusion that scares me comes in: Even in hundreds, thousands of years, Im concerned that we will not reach golden age of humanity. Especially concerning climate change and overpopulation. I know progress in technology can change all of that; but even facts are being questioned, and people manipulated.
I want to be wrong. Change my belief reddit! | OP it is *always* getting better.
Look at black Americans. Real, actual problems that matter, right? Thirty years ago (1987) it was objectively worse than today. Thirty years before that (1957) worse than 1987. 1927 worse than 1957. 1897 worse than 1927. And 1867 they just got done being property.
If you bring anyone of any race or any gender to the present, you'd blow their goddamn minds with how progressive we've gotten. | We are trending toward better equality and higher standards of living. There are fits and starts, but the long term trend seems to be positive.
Overpopulation isn't really an issue. The planet has more than enough resources to sustain our population, but we have a problem distributing them. Additionally, population growth naturally declines as countries modernize and stabilize. We will eventually go negative. | 5r8usy | CMV: We will never reach a future of common equal rights, good living standards and peace | This is something that has been bugging me for a while.
One of the things that brings meaning to my life is working towards improving this world - Because all of my effort can bring a better future for us all. Kind of like a butterfly effect. One small positive thing can go far.
Yet, it's so much easier for us to shift towards greed, lust for power, feeling superior over others, while positive attributes requiere constant effort and work. Justifying unethical actions because the end justifies the means. While I agree that might sometimes be the case, people often use that to push their own agendas. I mean, even when you think you're doing good, that might not be the case.
Which is when my conclusion that scares me comes in: Even in hundreds, thousands of years, Im concerned that we will not reach golden age of humanity. Especially concerning climate change and overpopulation. I know progress in technology can change all of that; but even facts are being questioned, and people manipulated.
I want to be wrong. Change my belief reddit! | 1,485,876,944 | Eriadam | dd5b5vp | dd5apue | 7 | 2 |
CMV: There are no girls nor boys toys, this is all a social construct with no basis in reality.Thus I believe many transgenders are victims of binary thinking.
The binary thinking that society bring upon us, is the one responsible for transgenderism and many surgeries would never had happened, were it not for the social construct of giving to boys car toys and to girls baby dolls, so in a sense, it is the fault of these society rules, that the misery and debate of transgenderism exists. Binary thinking... the reason why the transgender debate is completely focused on the wrong things, the real enemy of the transgender people is not their organs, but mostly society and the binary roles of man and women, which all starts in the crib, when boys are forced to wear blue and girls pink. | People constantly misunderstand what a social construct is, and it produces a warped understanding of what they tell us about society.
A social construct is not something we built just because, it's the product of a nearly endless chain of social interactions going back to the earliest primates understanding that a bigger ape screaming at them was a threat, not just a loud noise. We build successful systems of communication and understanding by constructing ideas through mutual recognition and consent. We start small and simple, but work our way up to full-fledged languages and sets of cultural norms.
We didn't just decide one day that boys have characteristics and girls have others, we compiled a general understanding and set of norms over hundreds of generations based on what we observe. In that sense, gender is a social construct. That doesn't mean it can be unilaterally ignored - quite the opposite is true. Gender and gender norms will persist as real things so long as most of society views them as useful and recognizes them.
This means that while there are no toys that are categorically boys' or girls', toys often have a recognizable masculine or feminine character due to our long-term collective experience that produces the association. Boys play with toy soldiers (matching their potential as warriors) more than girls play with dolls (matching their potential as mothers), and vice versa. That doesn't mean no person of the other gender can use them, it means that such deviations are relatively rare.
TL;DR - Disposing of a social construct requires collective consent. Until that happens, it's as real as anything else. | I think you completely misunderstand the entire issue. I'm not transgender, but transgender people have consistently said it's not about social constructs. The condition is *literally* feeling as if your body is the wrong gender. Merely acting like a different gender does not solve it. The surgeries and hormones are sometimes necessary to reconcile that internal disparity. It's like saying that people who suffer from phantom limbs are falling pray to a social construct of having two limbs. No, it's that their brain behaves in a way that doesn't match their body.
I get that it's hard to wrap your head around feeling like your body is the wrong gender. Instead of projecting how you *think* they feel onto them, why not just take their word for it? | 5r8zuq | CMV: There are no girls nor boys toys, this is all a social construct with no basis in reality.Thus I believe many transgenders are victims of binary thinking. | The binary thinking that society bring upon us, is the one responsible for transgenderism and many surgeries would never had happened, were it not for the social construct of giving to boys car toys and to girls baby dolls, so in a sense, it is the fault of these society rules, that the misery and debate of transgenderism exists. Binary thinking... the reason why the transgender debate is completely focused on the wrong things, the real enemy of the transgender people is not their organs, but mostly society and the binary roles of man and women, which all starts in the crib, when boys are forced to wear blue and girls pink. | 1,485,878,416 | Garlicplanet | dd5cfqr | dd5btt3 | 13 | 11 |
CMV: There is no way of changing someone's mind unless they're willing to change it
So to start with I'd like to just say I'm looking for people to point out either specific places in time or specific ideas that show a person changing their mind or disavowing a previous viewpoint despite being adamant or infuriated previously.
I call it the "Dawkin's Paradox". Named after Richard Dawkins who, though very intelligent and historically correct on most points, presents himself in a way that makes him out to be a total asshole. Most people who disagree with him don't disagree with his viewpoints but seek to actively disagree with him. The Dawkin's Paradox is when you're completely and unequivocally correct but there is a disagreement based on you presenting yourself like a total prat.
I first noticed this when I was younger and got into arguments with my brother. I, being younger, found myself being wrong pretty often and it would just irritate me to no end when my brother would mock my point of view and disqualify me as "stupid". After hours of arguing I'd understand that I was wrong but would still be blue-faced trying to scream about what I was right about, even if that wasn't even the initial argument.
As I got older, I noticed myself doing the same thing to others: Disavowing their point of view, calling them stupid, and poisoning the well for others. What I noticed shortly after that is the people I did that to would take up contrarian positions simply to defy me. Sometimes it would be trolling, but sometimes they'd be stuck in the same petulant conundrum I was in when I argued with my brother: I just didn't want him to be right.
After a few failed interactions where I did nothing but reinforce my opponents viewpoint I decided to try a "same team" mentality whereupon we both were discovering new things and their viewpoint was simply a starting point which I could use to lead them to the right place. In many situations this worked wonderfully; I was able to get people to understand my point of view and accept the facts that I presented them.
But then the wrench got put in the works. Since it worked so well with things before I tried to pull the same thing with some people who believed ideas I found flat out appalling. I've argued with flat-earthers, intelligent designers, pizzagaters, chemical conspiracy theorists, and a variety of other particularly ludicrous ideas. All of these conversations didn't end well and despite my attempts to be even gratuitously pleasant and understanding I was called everything from "brainwashed" to a "government shill" to just a plain "idiot". Despite these people being painfully ignorant they stood their ground and tried to instead convince me I was wrong.
Each time I went down the rabbit hole with them, trying to use their own logic against them and pointing out things that just flat out are hard to believe. Each time they rebutted my points with either canned statements or an appeal to the unknown.
After all these conversations I kept saying to myself, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Then in an effort to try to not be completely defeatist at a time when the ability to change a radicalized opinion is important, I'm offering, please, CMV.
| In one sense your claim is tautological - you can always claim after the fact that if someone changed their mind, they must have been 'willing' to change it. So you need to think about what 'willing' means here.
As you note, trying to argue directly against a person in the fastest way to entrench them in their current beliefs.
And in working 'with' them and moving forward, you were able to change their minds to something closer to what you believe.
You recognize that this is a more effective method of changing people's minds, and I'd like you to consider that in neither case was your target necessarily more or less 'willing' to change their mind - the difference in success was due to your technique.
Now when it comes to trying to convince those who hold ludicrous ideas, you tried the same 'friendly and move from there' technique but it failed. You feel it failed because they are 'less willing' to change their minds, but I propose that you have not considered that these targets have important differences from your previous targets that make their minds harder to change, as follows:
People who hold these ideals have already been subjected to a ton of other people who constantly try the first (ineffective) method of arguing them out of their beliefs. You mentioned poisoning the well - by the time you try your empathetic methods, these wells are incredibly poisonous, far moreso than your earlier subjects.
Thanks to the ease of finding online communities, they also already have a whole host of other confidantes who continue to influence them to remain in their belief set. You are one guy swimming against the tide, and when you start to split away, there's a whole lot of other people they know who ain't swimming like you are.
Lastly, because these beliefs are appalling to you, it is more challenging for you to successfully pretend to adopt or support them, leading for them to detect your hostility to the idea earlier in the process and set them on the defensive before they are comfortable with you.
If you want to read a good book about changing a seriously radicalized opinion, look at Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steve Hassan. One of the main things you have to do to be successful is get the cultist away from the cult.
| This is a little bit dark, but you can change someone's mind unwillingly via various procedures to the brain. There have also been certain [studies](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537177800121) done such as ones that convince an innocent person that they committed a crime. Basically, the study's conclusion is that if you hear something enough times, you start to believe it.
The problem is that in your example, you talk about only one instance at one moment in time as opposed to multiple instances over a period of time. | 5r98xe | CMV: There is no way of changing someone's mind unless they're willing to change it | So to start with I'd like to just say I'm looking for people to point out either specific places in time or specific ideas that show a person changing their mind or disavowing a previous viewpoint despite being adamant or infuriated previously.
I call it the "Dawkin's Paradox". Named after Richard Dawkins who, though very intelligent and historically correct on most points, presents himself in a way that makes him out to be a total asshole. Most people who disagree with him don't disagree with his viewpoints but seek to actively disagree with him. The Dawkin's Paradox is when you're completely and unequivocally correct but there is a disagreement based on you presenting yourself like a total prat.
I first noticed this when I was younger and got into arguments with my brother. I, being younger, found myself being wrong pretty often and it would just irritate me to no end when my brother would mock my point of view and disqualify me as "stupid". After hours of arguing I'd understand that I was wrong but would still be blue-faced trying to scream about what I was right about, even if that wasn't even the initial argument.
As I got older, I noticed myself doing the same thing to others: Disavowing their point of view, calling them stupid, and poisoning the well for others. What I noticed shortly after that is the people I did that to would take up contrarian positions simply to defy me. Sometimes it would be trolling, but sometimes they'd be stuck in the same petulant conundrum I was in when I argued with my brother: I just didn't want him to be right.
After a few failed interactions where I did nothing but reinforce my opponents viewpoint I decided to try a "same team" mentality whereupon we both were discovering new things and their viewpoint was simply a starting point which I could use to lead them to the right place. In many situations this worked wonderfully; I was able to get people to understand my point of view and accept the facts that I presented them.
But then the wrench got put in the works. Since it worked so well with things before I tried to pull the same thing with some people who believed ideas I found flat out appalling. I've argued with flat-earthers, intelligent designers, pizzagaters, chemical conspiracy theorists, and a variety of other particularly ludicrous ideas. All of these conversations didn't end well and despite my attempts to be even gratuitously pleasant and understanding I was called everything from "brainwashed" to a "government shill" to just a plain "idiot". Despite these people being painfully ignorant they stood their ground and tried to instead convince me I was wrong.
Each time I went down the rabbit hole with them, trying to use their own logic against them and pointing out things that just flat out are hard to believe. Each time they rebutted my points with either canned statements or an appeal to the unknown.
After all these conversations I kept saying to myself, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Then in an effort to try to not be completely defeatist at a time when the ability to change a radicalized opinion is important, I'm offering, please, CMV.
| 1,485,880,721 | tanukisuit11 | dd5iq5v | dd5fp55 | 3 | 1 |
CMV: A good majority of people need to just get over what they claim is depression.
So let me start off by saying that I do believe actual depression exists. I just think that I think the majority of people who will actually mention it are either A; using it as a crutch, or B; over exaggerating it for the sake of a better story for attention.
I believe all humans have different emotions at different times. For instance; being hit in the arm causes a pain response which immediately directs your attention to the point of injury so you can form a valid assessment of the damage and or corrective action to fix the problem.
Let me start off the discussion by proving there is a problem here. This is a quote from a quick Google search, but it raises my point of the entire argument. "Over the course of 20 years, according to the most recently available data, the U.S. saw a 400 percent increase in antidepressant use, resulting in 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 taking some form of depression medication by 2008"
I think that issuing medication to someone who is 12 and doesn't have a fully formed brain is highly dangerous, but that's a discussion for another time. My point here though is that people don't learn how to cope with problems the normal way. It seems like people have bad events happen to them and immediately report feelings of depression only to then get slammed on medication for feeling a perfectly normal emotion. They then keep this "medication" as a tool of coping with the negative aspects of life, instead of actually learning and experiencing what life throws their way.
Maybe I'm taking the saying "Just walk it off" too seriously, but I just keep hearing the same things all the time. I’m open to being properly educated on the subject if you feel that I’m not already, I’d also like to hear others thoughts on this as well, as this topic is especially tough to talk about without someone taking it personal.
| I'm not seeing in your post a particular reason you think the majority of people medicated for depression are misdiagnosed.
You make this statement:
>It seems like people have bad events happen to them and immediately report feelings of depression only to then get slammed on medication for feeling a perfectly normal emotion.
What facts, statistics or information have you seen that makes you conclude that the majority of diagnosed depression sufferers fall into this category? If you just **feel** it's likely without any particular evidence, then I'd say your view is at least unjustified. If you're basing it on some evidence, share it.
| Let's put it this way: even if you're right what good is telling people this? Maybe you don't, but if you do the best case scenario I'd argue is that you'd tick off a person who dies fit into this, and the worst case is you'd discourage a person actually struggling from getting the help they need it reaching out when necessary. Especially if you aren't an expert, you don't know what a person is hiding emotion wise.
Now I will say maybe we need to look at the experts and how it's diagnosed/treated and refine that, but I think it's harmful for laymen to go around spouting this at other laymen. | 5r98xd | CMV: A good majority of people need to just get over what they claim is depression. | So let me start off by saying that I do believe actual depression exists. I just think that I think the majority of people who will actually mention it are either A; using it as a crutch, or B; over exaggerating it for the sake of a better story for attention.
I believe all humans have different emotions at different times. For instance; being hit in the arm causes a pain response which immediately directs your attention to the point of injury so you can form a valid assessment of the damage and or corrective action to fix the problem.
Let me start off the discussion by proving there is a problem here. This is a quote from a quick Google search, but it raises my point of the entire argument. "Over the course of 20 years, according to the most recently available data, the U.S. saw a 400 percent increase in antidepressant use, resulting in 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 taking some form of depression medication by 2008"
I think that issuing medication to someone who is 12 and doesn't have a fully formed brain is highly dangerous, but that's a discussion for another time. My point here though is that people don't learn how to cope with problems the normal way. It seems like people have bad events happen to them and immediately report feelings of depression only to then get slammed on medication for feeling a perfectly normal emotion. They then keep this "medication" as a tool of coping with the negative aspects of life, instead of actually learning and experiencing what life throws their way.
Maybe I'm taking the saying "Just walk it off" too seriously, but I just keep hearing the same things all the time. I’m open to being properly educated on the subject if you feel that I’m not already, I’d also like to hear others thoughts on this as well, as this topic is especially tough to talk about without someone taking it personal.
| 1,485,880,721 | xeonsteel | dd5epgw | dd5dsb8 | 4 | 3 |
CMV: Collective punishment is an effective strategy against an insurgency/resistance
Nowhere here do I want to argue the morality of collective punishment. From any libertarian view, collective punishment is wrong and violates the individual's rights who it is brought upon. And maybe the morality is the only reason we don't use it, and if that's the case, id like to find that out.
But my view is that collective punishment works against a resistance movement/insurgency.
When dealing with open war, the rules may be different, as you are fighting soldiers.
But in an insurgency, every single person in a location could potentially become militarized without putting on a uniform.
For that reason, the only way to defeat such an enemy without complete annihilation of a populace is to convince people not to join the insurgency.
People, in general, care about those with whom they associate. If the result of joining an insurgency results in the death or torture of everyone you love, I believe you assuredly would not join.
Therein, the only people who would join are those with no familial ties at all. I believe this is not many people, as nearly everyone has some form of family or friends that they care about.
If you can make the risk great enough that people know that by joining an insurgency, everyone you love will be killed, I don't believe anyone would join an insurgency.
For help, effective arguments may include our inability to follow through on collective punishment, either by logistics and intelligence or by emotional strength of the soldiers ordered to carry out the punishment.
A cold argument that the UN simply wouldn't accept it would be hard to swallow. They really don't have the power to stop us from doing it, so I would need evidence that the UN would be powerful enough to stop the US from committing such acts
Lastly, maybe an argument that the likelihood of bad intelligence leading to the collective punishment of the wrong people. I don't see this as a major problem, as the overall campaign could still be very effective, but maybe there's an argument to be had there.
And, as always, more than open to something I can't even imagine. That's always the best! So, with no further ado
Change My View | Instead of armchair theorizing, you might want to research the subject. Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Arendt, has a lengthy section on where the Nazis were, and were not, successful in forcing territory they controlled to hand over local Jews. Short version- collective punishment didn't work unless it was a very small collective, and other locals helped. Using collective punishment on large groups of people didn't work because it prevented their cooperation on othe matters (taxes, troop movements, not supporting resistance even more than the status quo) and essentially amounted to re-declaring war all over again.
This is probably why Israel can't get anywhere with Palestine. | It depends on whether the population has an existing power structure that expects to remain in power. If it does, then collective punishment can work - the power structure will act to save its people usually. But what if that's not the case? What if the insurgency doesn't have ironclad support?
In the latter case the leaders of the insurgency have goals that don't perfectly align with the population. They are in a struggle with the occupiers for the obedience of the people. And in that struggle, consider the incentives of apolitical individuals, say in Afghanistan. If I disobey the Americans, there will be diffuse punishment that personally hurts me a little. If I disobey the Taliban, I risk severe punishment or death. Even if I like the Americans, the asymmetric incentive structure of "obey or you die" vs "obey or the whole region is hurt has to make me think twice about collaboration with the Americans.
So collective punishment is not effective in the situation of a non-unified population with internal power struggles because individual punishment can be so much more severe to the individual being punished.
I know you talked about killing the whole village if I disobey, but if there is no unity then that is not collective punishment but just a guarantee of wiping everyone out which is I guess effective but not at producing obedience per se. | 5r9rzx | CMV: Collective punishment is an effective strategy against an insurgency/resistance | Nowhere here do I want to argue the morality of collective punishment. From any libertarian view, collective punishment is wrong and violates the individual's rights who it is brought upon. And maybe the morality is the only reason we don't use it, and if that's the case, id like to find that out.
But my view is that collective punishment works against a resistance movement/insurgency.
When dealing with open war, the rules may be different, as you are fighting soldiers.
But in an insurgency, every single person in a location could potentially become militarized without putting on a uniform.
For that reason, the only way to defeat such an enemy without complete annihilation of a populace is to convince people not to join the insurgency.
People, in general, care about those with whom they associate. If the result of joining an insurgency results in the death or torture of everyone you love, I believe you assuredly would not join.
Therein, the only people who would join are those with no familial ties at all. I believe this is not many people, as nearly everyone has some form of family or friends that they care about.
If you can make the risk great enough that people know that by joining an insurgency, everyone you love will be killed, I don't believe anyone would join an insurgency.
For help, effective arguments may include our inability to follow through on collective punishment, either by logistics and intelligence or by emotional strength of the soldiers ordered to carry out the punishment.
A cold argument that the UN simply wouldn't accept it would be hard to swallow. They really don't have the power to stop us from doing it, so I would need evidence that the UN would be powerful enough to stop the US from committing such acts
Lastly, maybe an argument that the likelihood of bad intelligence leading to the collective punishment of the wrong people. I don't see this as a major problem, as the overall campaign could still be very effective, but maybe there's an argument to be had there.
And, as always, more than open to something I can't even imagine. That's always the best! So, with no further ado
Change My View | 1,485,885,479 | One_Winged_Rook | dd5k2vm | dd5iuxs | 3 | 1 |
CMV: I don't understand why people are so willing to choose pets over other people.
I first encountered it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5kxqwa/divorce_lawyers_of_reddit_what_things_do_clients/dbrmohi/
and here today: https://www.buzzfeed.com/soniathomas/doggo-baby-shoot?utm_term=.nr4gJy6y1#.kaZx38d8D
Many of these comments say something along the lines of "I would choose my pet over this person", or "if others say that you should get rid of your pets, get a new family or get new friends".
I completely do not understand this. If your family and friends love you, and are possibly saying this in your best interests, why is it offensive enough that you would you choose your pet over your family and friends? Or that random others in the Internet would encourage you to do so?
I understand that the argument is made that pets are basically family. Or that pets are basically their children. Maybe it's because neither my parents, or I, or my extended family have been pet owners. I have many friends though that are, as well as my boyfriend. I see these pets often and perhaps the difference is I like them and I don't love them and see them as family. However, my boyfriend loves his dogs and yet he's told me he would choose his family in a heartbeat.
It blows my mind that people would choose the life of an animal over another human. I would absolutely choose my friends and family over a pet. I wouldn't be happy about it but I would never choose my pet without a second thought like many people have commented. In regards to the first link, I would absolutely choose the bus full of children. I wouldn't be able to live with myself and cause so many others pain and be the sole reason for the loss of their children.
Perhaps a good parallel would be choosing a human family member/friend vs. a school bus of children? It seems that I don't understand seeing pets on an equal level as human family or friends.
I really would like to understand the other side. | In a life-or-death situation, I'd probably choose to save people over animals. But since it's very unlikely that I'll ever be in that sort of situation, I'm taking this as "do I prioritize people or animals in my lifestyle choices?"
If a person demands that I choose between them and my cats, *knowing how much I value my cats*, then I see it as a sign that they don't understand or respect my feelings. It would be on the same level as someone expecting me to give up my career or other aspiration that's important to me - they're entitled to their feelings on the matter, but it would have major effects on our relationship. Someone who doesn't feel the same way I do about pets is probably not someone that I'll ever be compatible with. | In my opinion (and this is just that, an opinion) pets don't talk back. Obviously. But more specifically, they might do things you don't like, but you can always frame a pet's actions how you want. People are complex- even if I love my family, there's no guarantee that they will support me whatever decision I make. Pets are...well, regardless of what they do, many owners imagine pets to be what they want them to be. There's no surprises- and pets don't judge. For some people, pets are closer than any human because real humans are flawed, complex creatures that aren't predictable. Regardless of a pet's personality, many people project the personality they believe their pet to have onto said pet. And the pet can't exactly disagree.
It depends on the owner, too. If the owner doesn't have particularly close friends or family, but lives with their pet all day, why would they go out of their way to get rid of (or otherwise choose) family/friends over a pet? Pets have a capacity for unconditional love that many see the human race as incapable of having. | 5rabs9 | CMV: I don't understand why people are so willing to choose pets over other people. | I first encountered it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5kxqwa/divorce_lawyers_of_reddit_what_things_do_clients/dbrmohi/
and here today: https://www.buzzfeed.com/soniathomas/doggo-baby-shoot?utm_term=.nr4gJy6y1#.kaZx38d8D
Many of these comments say something along the lines of "I would choose my pet over this person", or "if others say that you should get rid of your pets, get a new family or get new friends".
I completely do not understand this. If your family and friends love you, and are possibly saying this in your best interests, why is it offensive enough that you would you choose your pet over your family and friends? Or that random others in the Internet would encourage you to do so?
I understand that the argument is made that pets are basically family. Or that pets are basically their children. Maybe it's because neither my parents, or I, or my extended family have been pet owners. I have many friends though that are, as well as my boyfriend. I see these pets often and perhaps the difference is I like them and I don't love them and see them as family. However, my boyfriend loves his dogs and yet he's told me he would choose his family in a heartbeat.
It blows my mind that people would choose the life of an animal over another human. I would absolutely choose my friends and family over a pet. I wouldn't be happy about it but I would never choose my pet without a second thought like many people have commented. In regards to the first link, I would absolutely choose the bus full of children. I wouldn't be able to live with myself and cause so many others pain and be the sole reason for the loss of their children.
Perhaps a good parallel would be choosing a human family member/friend vs. a school bus of children? It seems that I don't understand seeing pets on an equal level as human family or friends.
I really would like to understand the other side. | 1,485,890,554 | katieees | dd5oqu7 | dd5mzbn | 7 | 5 |
CMV: Smoking isn't THAT bad.
I've grown up with smoking. I've lost my grandfather to cancer. Both sets of my parents smoke and told me now to, while holding cigarettes between their lips.
Long story short, I have smoked, quit and smoked and quit again. But JFC, I crave hard still. I enjoy being around smokers, I enjoy the smell (but I get that's brainwashing).
I want to start seeing this as a vile habit. I'm on r/stopsmoking but it hasn't helped to much. I want to stay off smoking, but I understand that I am not seeing the full harms, or comprehending them anyways. Please, scare the shit out of me.
The main reason I quit as the emotional issues: guilt, lying to family, etc but then when I started back I actually felt hooked. I haven't found a replacement yet but I really would like an alternative to handle some of the newfound stress in my life. I never realized how much self medication I was doing.
I need to stay off that shit for ever but I'm finding a lack of confidence / moral support. | If you want to get scared straight, Youtube some videos about Lung Cancer, Throat Cancer, or just Truth.org.
However, I think you mentioned something much more interesting. You believe you are smoking due to a lack of social support. This is likely true. Mental Disorders of all sorts (anxiety, depression, and drug abuse) are all more common and more devastating as one loses social support.
If you truly want to quit, you might need to change your social circle. Go to a different bar than normal, hang out with different people at the office, reconnect with family members that don't smoke, etc. You will probably need family/friends to help you and be there for you if you really want to quit.
You also mention stress and self-medicating. If there are other issues in your life besides smoking, do not be afraid to see someone. Talk to a counselor, Talk to your doctor.
Good Luck. | You feel like smoking isn't that bad even after you've lost family to cancer, feel hooked against your will, are using smoking to self medicate. It seems like you know how awful smoking is you're just in denial. | 5raq63 | CMV: Smoking isn't THAT bad. | I've grown up with smoking. I've lost my grandfather to cancer. Both sets of my parents smoke and told me now to, while holding cigarettes between their lips.
Long story short, I have smoked, quit and smoked and quit again. But JFC, I crave hard still. I enjoy being around smokers, I enjoy the smell (but I get that's brainwashing).
I want to start seeing this as a vile habit. I'm on r/stopsmoking but it hasn't helped to much. I want to stay off smoking, but I understand that I am not seeing the full harms, or comprehending them anyways. Please, scare the shit out of me.
The main reason I quit as the emotional issues: guilt, lying to family, etc but then when I started back I actually felt hooked. I haven't found a replacement yet but I really would like an alternative to handle some of the newfound stress in my life. I never realized how much self medication I was doing.
I need to stay off that shit for ever but I'm finding a lack of confidence / moral support. | 1,485,894,331 | CanuckCharlie | dd5qixu | dd5qfnr | 6 | 1 |
CMV: The famous checks and balances will fail if President Trump manages to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice
Going by what has transpired in the last 10 days of Trump's presidency, there are three major problems:
1. Leaders of congress are all unwilling to stand up to Trump despite having made tall claims about bans on immigration being unconstitutional. ([Source](https://mic.com/articles/166980/donald-trump-muslim-ban-republican-critics-now-support-hypocrisy#.HnIcsEXRe))
2. Federal departments following Executive Orders despite court orders. ([Source](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban))
3. Trump's willingness to fire officials who refuse to enforce his orders because he considers them betrayals. ([Source](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/white-house-statement-attorney-general/index.html))
Now from my understanding Executive Orders can be repealed by the Supreme Court. But, if Trump manages to appoint a Conservative SCOTUS who is also unwilling to stand up to Trump, how will checks and balances work?
To change my view, I'm looking for arguments on the following:
* Trump would not be able to appoint a SCOTUS Justice that he likes and will be willing to support him carte blanche
* Even if he manages to appoint a conservative SCOTUS Justice, the other justices can and will vote against him
* The Republican controlled congress will stand up against Trump's orders when they consider them unconstitutional
* Refuting my understanding of checks and balances
Thanks!
EDIT: Strengthens my belief in the delta because it looks like calling representatives has worked. According to this [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/02/01/two-republican-senators-say-they-will-vote-against-devos-for-education-secretary/?utm_term=.4886b823b4af), several Republican Senators are feeling the pressure from their constituents.
Thanks for the detailed discussion u/Grunt08, and everyone else who participated. | 1) Trump is not a conservative, so it's a mistake to presume that SCOTUS is going to uphold his executive orders just because he's a Republican. Bear in mind that even conservatives on the court have no concerns about elections, party orthodoxy, or populist fervor, and are free to make principled choices.
2) Trump is allowed to fire officials, but that's much harder to do when they're his appointees. Firing an acting AG appointed by Obama is politically plausible, firing say...John Kelly or James Mattis is not. By all accounts, Kelly is livid right now because he (the head of DHS) learned of the final language of an order his agency was supposed to enforce *as it was being signed.* That leads to:
3) Because the order was implemented so bizarrely, it's likely that the normal preparation and briefing protocol for CBP broke down. To put it simply: they probably didn't know what the law was and chose to go with the secure option. They can detain now and release later, but they can't detain once they've already let people through. Detaining was the closest thing they could do to following both their original orders and the court orders they weren't prepared to legally disambiguate.
I could very well be wrong about that, but better not to ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
4) The order is watered down and sudden enough that it's difficult for Congressional Republicans to oppose immediately. It's technically (as opposed to "in practice") not a ban based on religion, and Presidents arguably have the right to impose such restrictions if they're not discriminatory in that way. Add that ambiguity to the timing (right before a weekend), surprise (Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan also found out as Trump was signing it), and some much darker internal problems (hill staffers worked on the order without telling their bosses), and a delayed response is understandable.
Hell, even Tillerson is pissed off that he wasn't apprised.
5) Right now, everyone in Washington - and I mean everyone - is off kilter and confused. Nothing like this has happened before and there is no reliable opposition playbook. Given time, opposition to Trump will coalesce, organize, and develop a strategy. There are lot more necessary conditions for the failure of checks and balances than a SCOTUS nomination. | >if Drumpf manages to appoint a Conservative SCOTUS who is also unwilling to stand up to Drumpf, how will checks and balances work?
They still will be there but the people in control of them are aligned in interests why would they get in each others way? | 5rawrq | CMV: The famous checks and balances will fail if President Trump manages to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice | Going by what has transpired in the last 10 days of Trump's presidency, there are three major problems:
1. Leaders of congress are all unwilling to stand up to Trump despite having made tall claims about bans on immigration being unconstitutional. ([Source](https://mic.com/articles/166980/donald-trump-muslim-ban-republican-critics-now-support-hypocrisy#.HnIcsEXRe))
2. Federal departments following Executive Orders despite court orders. ([Source](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban))
3. Trump's willingness to fire officials who refuse to enforce his orders because he considers them betrayals. ([Source](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/white-house-statement-attorney-general/index.html))
Now from my understanding Executive Orders can be repealed by the Supreme Court. But, if Trump manages to appoint a Conservative SCOTUS who is also unwilling to stand up to Trump, how will checks and balances work?
To change my view, I'm looking for arguments on the following:
* Trump would not be able to appoint a SCOTUS Justice that he likes and will be willing to support him carte blanche
* Even if he manages to appoint a conservative SCOTUS Justice, the other justices can and will vote against him
* The Republican controlled congress will stand up against Trump's orders when they consider them unconstitutional
* Refuting my understanding of checks and balances
Thanks!
EDIT: Strengthens my belief in the delta because it looks like calling representatives has worked. According to this [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/02/01/two-republican-senators-say-they-will-vote-against-devos-for-education-secretary/?utm_term=.4886b823b4af), several Republican Senators are feeling the pressure from their constituents.
Thanks for the detailed discussion u/Grunt08, and everyone else who participated. | 1,485,896,048 | analystdude | dd5t04b | dd5sguz | 5 | 1 |
CMV: Abortion should be protected by the same laws that allow for lethal force in self defense
I know it sounds weird, but being pregnant when you don't want to be is essentially the same as being raped. Having a person inside you without your consent certainly sounds like rape to me. If someone is trying to rape you, you have a right to defend yourself- even if it leads to the rapist's death.
Now I know that rapists and babies/fetuses/embryos are considered different in the sense that one "chooses" to rape while one is simply brought into existence, but this calls for an acceptance of free will. If we recognize free will as simply an illusion, then the rapist is equally forced by the determined circumstances of the universe to attack a person in the same way the baby/embryo/fetus is brought to it's position in the womb.
It then seems logical that defending oneself from a rapist and defending oneself from an unwanted pregnancy are equally justified.
I like this argument for supporting abortion rights because it works regardless of when an individual believes a person with rights comes into existence. | Defending yourself against a rapist is considered acceptable because the rapist is placing you in bodily danger, being pregnant does not place you in any danger (barring complications) so the analogy your presenting is false | It is not the act of the "rape" that is being prosecuted. It is the act of self-defense. If the murderer couldn't help but murder me, I still have the right to defend myself from them. Corpses never get prosecuted in America. | 5rb7bq | CMV: Abortion should be protected by the same laws that allow for lethal force in self defense | I know it sounds weird, but being pregnant when you don't want to be is essentially the same as being raped. Having a person inside you without your consent certainly sounds like rape to me. If someone is trying to rape you, you have a right to defend yourself- even if it leads to the rapist's death.
Now I know that rapists and babies/fetuses/embryos are considered different in the sense that one "chooses" to rape while one is simply brought into existence, but this calls for an acceptance of free will. If we recognize free will as simply an illusion, then the rapist is equally forced by the determined circumstances of the universe to attack a person in the same way the baby/embryo/fetus is brought to it's position in the womb.
It then seems logical that defending oneself from a rapist and defending oneself from an unwanted pregnancy are equally justified.
I like this argument for supporting abortion rights because it works regardless of when an individual believes a person with rights comes into existence. | 1,485,898,840 | jessebanjo | dd637wl | dd5wxyz | 3 | 2 |
CMV: There's no advantage in living in a developing country
A couple of days ago, I asked on Ask Reddit what were the advantages on living in a developing country. [But I didn't get satisfying answers](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5quv41/whats_an_advantage_of_living_in_a_developing/). My first CMV ever was about *being proud* of living in a developed country. This one is about *advantages* in living in a developing country. I won't accept "stuff is cheaper" because this is compensated by the higher wages in the developed countries (also, they seem not to apply to some countries).
As you could see in several rankings not necessarily related to the HDI, the developed countries are still in a massive advantage. They're better in corruption perception, peace (you may not classify Portugal as developed, but whatever), likelihood to survive the global warming (even if their environment is more fragile), stability, crime rates, maybe behavior and a lot of relevant stuff.
Most of the "advantages" of developing countries I can think of, like economic growth and production of whatever food or ressource are too subjective.
P.S.: the doping cases in international sports are almost always from developing countries.
I can't think of anything else, so change my view. | >I won't accept "stuff is cheaper" because this is compensated by the higher wages in the developed countries (also, they seem not to apply to some countries).
What about for retirees? They haven't the need for higher wages because they don't work. The lower costs(and generally mild environments) in many developing countries are enough to justify retiring there.
>As you could see in several rankings not necessarily related to the HDI, the developed countries are still in a massive advantage.
What about things which apply at the individual level that aren't necessarily going to be reflected in HDI? What if someone cares more about being closer to their family/hobbies/whatever than they do about having a longer life expectancy?
| I don't have time for an in depth post at the moment, but let's start with a question. Are these:
>They're better in corruption perception, peace (you may not classify Portugal as developed, but whatever), likelihood to survive the global warming (even if their environment is more fragile), stability, crime rates, maybe behavior and a lot of relevant stuff.
*Less subjective* than these:
>economic growth and production
I feel like you're looking for non-economic advantages to living in a developing nation, which is a different beast from *any* advantage (which is your title). | 5rbevk | CMV: There's no advantage in living in a developing country | A couple of days ago, I asked on Ask Reddit what were the advantages on living in a developing country. [But I didn't get satisfying answers](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5quv41/whats_an_advantage_of_living_in_a_developing/). My first CMV ever was about *being proud* of living in a developed country. This one is about *advantages* in living in a developing country. I won't accept "stuff is cheaper" because this is compensated by the higher wages in the developed countries (also, they seem not to apply to some countries).
As you could see in several rankings not necessarily related to the HDI, the developed countries are still in a massive advantage. They're better in corruption perception, peace (you may not classify Portugal as developed, but whatever), likelihood to survive the global warming (even if their environment is more fragile), stability, crime rates, maybe behavior and a lot of relevant stuff.
Most of the "advantages" of developing countries I can think of, like economic growth and production of whatever food or ressource are too subjective.
P.S.: the doping cases in international sports are almost always from developing countries.
I can't think of anything else, so change my view. | 1,485,900,888 | garaile64 | dd608ax | dd5z2py | 3 | 1 |
CMV: Captain America is the worst avenger.
First of all, Cap's shield isn't usable only by him, whereas for the most part, Iron Man's suit, Hawkeye's bow, etc. all require significant training to use. I am aware that the shield is better with training too, but at the end of the day it's just a big metal disk, no matter how powerful. Second, apart from his shield Captain America doesn't posses abilities on par with the other avengers. I know that he has strength beyond that of the average human but so do many other avengers, and the ones that don't are able to dispatch their opponents from a distance (Hawkeye, black widow) or get in a position where they don't need to worry about getting punched (Black panther, antman.) Finally, he doesn't really demonstrate any sort of outstanding leadership apart from the ability to give orders.
EDIT: Sorry for not specifying about the canon. While I'm more familiar with the CU, I'm happy to get destroyed by any examples from the comics. | I read this scene years ago, but it's still awesome:
[Daredevil 233](http://economicsandethics.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a58aead7970c014e8804a1b8970d-pi)
When the Avengers arrive on the scene, Frank Miller describes Cap as "A Soldier with a voice that could command a God - and does".
And that's his *real* super power - leadership. Here you have a team of insanely powerful people who are used to solving problems on their own. How the hell do you get a group like that to work together?
Well, you need to have someone whose leadership and strategic prowess are beyond questioning. Who the hell else could possibly give orders to Thor or Iron Man?
It's like discounting Professor X's impact on the X-Men. It's not that he's a telepath - it's that he is who he is - the only guy who could realistically get both Scott Summers and Logan to follow his commands. | We really need to know what canon you are using.
In the comics, canonically he is the best tactitian and one of the two or three best hand to hand fighters in the Marvel universe, in addition to his other leadership skills. No one can use his shield nearly as well as him, just like no one can use Iron man's armor as well. He also has near infinity endurance and can run far faster than any regular human. | 5rbf5l | CMV: Captain America is the worst avenger. | First of all, Cap's shield isn't usable only by him, whereas for the most part, Iron Man's suit, Hawkeye's bow, etc. all require significant training to use. I am aware that the shield is better with training too, but at the end of the day it's just a big metal disk, no matter how powerful. Second, apart from his shield Captain America doesn't posses abilities on par with the other avengers. I know that he has strength beyond that of the average human but so do many other avengers, and the ones that don't are able to dispatch their opponents from a distance (Hawkeye, black widow) or get in a position where they don't need to worry about getting punched (Black panther, antman.) Finally, he doesn't really demonstrate any sort of outstanding leadership apart from the ability to give orders.
EDIT: Sorry for not specifying about the canon. While I'm more familiar with the CU, I'm happy to get destroyed by any examples from the comics. | 1,485,900,966 | Taters213 | dd5yiiq | dd5xnfv | 62 | 23 |
CMV: feminism is the notion that women should be absolved from all responsibility and criticism.
First off please don't bring up 1940s or 1920s feminism. I'm talking 3rd wave feminism we see today.
What are the issues feminists lament about? Online harassment, college rape culture, fat acceptance, abortion, Street Harassment, and gender pay gap.
Online Harassment: I won't deny that some men are inherently mean to women but, mostly it is just petty insults thrown at people. If reported to the police, twitter threats are taken seriously and one man was even arrested for it.
College rape culture: 1 in 3 female college students get raped according to feminists. If 1/3 of women were forcibly raped or date raped then you wouldn't see too many girls going to college parties. Most college rapes that the media portrays are not groups of 2-3 men beating a girl or 1 man spiking a girl's drink. Instead you get two drunk students having sex, and the girl withdrawing her consent. Yes many men were falsely accused of rape and even thrown in jail because some girl felt ashamed of her actions.
fat acceptance: please don't bring up dadbods, because now women [outnumber men](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-overtake-men-in-u-s-obesity-rates/) when it comes to obesity. Overweight men still outnumber women but if you take into account bodybuilding, and bone structure, women may outnumber men in this category as well. Why? the fat acceptance movement. it is mostly women, who lament on "**Patriarchal** Beauty standards." If feminism was about empowerment they would be inspired to become healthy and fit rather than get offended by a [fit woman in a bikini](http://time.com/3837979/beach-body-ready-protest-advertisements/).
Abortion: Killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, yet abortion isn't murder? Only [12% of abortions were due to health problems 1% were rape, 2% abused by husband](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf) the rest are "I'm not ready for children." It's pretty easy to not get pregnant: don't have sex or use protection/birth control.
Street Harassment: yes there are cat-callers but so called street harassment also includes men striking up a conversation with a woman they find attractive which is by no means harassment. Is it really that bad that a man asked for directions? It's pretty easy to get out of a conversation.
Pay gap: The reason is simple: women tend to pick occupations that pay less. The pay gap great diminishes after [controlling for job choice/major](http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income).
edit: A lot of the feminists I encountered both on the internet and in real life are just losers who want to identify with some movement while the successful ones are too busy to be bothered with protesting/posting/lashing out at people.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | >I won't deny that some men are inherently mean to women but, mostly it is just petty insults thrown at people.
Visit r/creepyPMs sometime or look at the massive campaign of online harrassment towards Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn or look at revenge porn websites. Oftentimes, it is a lot more than just petty insults. The internet has an alarming streak of violent misogyny. The fact that this happens at such a massive scale rightfully worries women about misogynistic layers of society that don't get aired out in public.
>1 in 3 female college students get raped according to feminists.
1 in 3 female rape victims are raped in college, not 1 in 3 female college students. The actual statistics aren't much better though. [Nearly 1 in 5 women have been victims of rape.] (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf) This also isn't according to feminists, it's according to the CDC.
>Most college rapes that the media portrays are not groups of 2-3 men beating a girl or 1 man spiking a girl's drink. Instead you get two drunk students having sex, and the girl withdrawing her consent.
The third scenario is still rape. If you withdraw consent, the other person should stop having sex with you. How is that feminists acting entitled?
>Yes many men were falsely accused of rape and even thrown in jail because some girl felt ashamed of her actions.
Got anything to back up that claim?
>Why? the fat acceptance movement. it is mostly women, who lament on "Patriarchal Beauty standards." If feminism was about empowerment they would be inspired to become healthy and fit rather than get offended by a fit woman in a bikini.
If depictions of fit women in bikinis got people to lose weight, we wouldn't have an obesity problem would we? If shaming fat people got them to lose weight, we wouldn't have an obesity problem either. What we do know is that unrealistic beauty standards in the media make people incredibly insecure about their bodies, even if they aren't overweight. Not everyone can even lose weight, and even for those who can they should be able to feel comfortable going to the gym without being mocked for it.
>It's pretty easy to not get pregnant: don't have sex or use protection/birth control.
You fundamentally misunderstand the legal basis for abortion. A woman can get an abortion because she has a right to her body, just like you have a right to yours. To overturn Roe v. Wade would be to remove this right for women. Now you're probably saying well what about the right to life? Good question. Luckily, the courts have already considered that. So long as a fetus is not viable outside the womb, it has no right to life. Potential for humanity doesn't guarantee constitutional protections. If it did, every time you jack off you would be guilty of mass murder.
>men striking up a conversation with a woman they find attractive which is by no means harassment.
It's uncomfortable if strangers are constantly commenting on your looks. That's the main problem. It's never "I like your purse" or "I hope you have a good day" it's "dayum look at those titties" or "you got a boyfriend?" Is it too much to ask to not be constantly sexually objectified?
>Is it really that bad that a man asked for directions?
That's not fucking catcalling. I have no idea why you think it is. | The "third wave" feminism you talk about isn't feminism. Those people have expertly hijacked feminism in order to create an "us/them" situation in an effort to demonize people and ride the coattails of the progress being experienced in other marginalized groups.
*Because* feminism has been a movement for so long, it has lost a little of its novelty. Some of the radicals see the progress that has occurred in the black community and the LGBT community and they want to spark a revival of that same fervor from government and in public advocacy.
The annoying people who have done this understand that their actions will bring out a vocal "anti" element that they can use to label *everyone* as anti-woman when, in reality, most people want all people to be treated equally under the law and to have the same rights and opportunities. | 5rbt16 | CMV: feminism is the notion that women should be absolved from all responsibility and criticism. | First off please don't bring up 1940s or 1920s feminism. I'm talking 3rd wave feminism we see today.
What are the issues feminists lament about? Online harassment, college rape culture, fat acceptance, abortion, Street Harassment, and gender pay gap.
Online Harassment: I won't deny that some men are inherently mean to women but, mostly it is just petty insults thrown at people. If reported to the police, twitter threats are taken seriously and one man was even arrested for it.
College rape culture: 1 in 3 female college students get raped according to feminists. If 1/3 of women were forcibly raped or date raped then you wouldn't see too many girls going to college parties. Most college rapes that the media portrays are not groups of 2-3 men beating a girl or 1 man spiking a girl's drink. Instead you get two drunk students having sex, and the girl withdrawing her consent. Yes many men were falsely accused of rape and even thrown in jail because some girl felt ashamed of her actions.
fat acceptance: please don't bring up dadbods, because now women [outnumber men](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-overtake-men-in-u-s-obesity-rates/) when it comes to obesity. Overweight men still outnumber women but if you take into account bodybuilding, and bone structure, women may outnumber men in this category as well. Why? the fat acceptance movement. it is mostly women, who lament on "**Patriarchal** Beauty standards." If feminism was about empowerment they would be inspired to become healthy and fit rather than get offended by a [fit woman in a bikini](http://time.com/3837979/beach-body-ready-protest-advertisements/).
Abortion: Killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, yet abortion isn't murder? Only [12% of abortions were due to health problems 1% were rape, 2% abused by husband](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf) the rest are "I'm not ready for children." It's pretty easy to not get pregnant: don't have sex or use protection/birth control.
Street Harassment: yes there are cat-callers but so called street harassment also includes men striking up a conversation with a woman they find attractive which is by no means harassment. Is it really that bad that a man asked for directions? It's pretty easy to get out of a conversation.
Pay gap: The reason is simple: women tend to pick occupations that pay less. The pay gap great diminishes after [controlling for job choice/major](http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income).
edit: A lot of the feminists I encountered both on the internet and in real life are just losers who want to identify with some movement while the successful ones are too busy to be bothered with protesting/posting/lashing out at people.
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | 1,485,904,777 | Ape_doctor | dd61mrn | dd605mv | 7 | 2 |
CMV: Watching the UFC is morally reprehensible.
The reason I believe this is because I believe that it is morally reprehensible to derive enjoyment from watching two people inflict pain on each other. It is, to me, the human equivalent of dog fighting.
I don't think it should be illegal like dog fighting because the fights are between willing participants.
I'd like to address a few possible counterpoints to this:
1. What about other martial arts like boxing or judo?
Martial arts like judo or greco-roman wrestling aren't about striking blows but are more about technical grappling which don't really result in injury. Things like boxing or karate have a very strict point system which also favors technicality rather than submission.
2. All martial result in physical trauma.
True but the trauma is very rarely immediately visible and usually occurs over extended practice of the sport (brain damage in boxing) so the pleasure is derived from the technique and strategy.
3. There's plenty of technique involved in the UFC though.
True, with this point I differentiate between people who are passionate about the sport and understand the technique and the strategy and the casual fan who enjoys watching people beat the shit out of each other. | The people who complete in UFC are doing so willingly without duress were as dogs in dogfighting aren't given a choice.
Also why should deriving pleasure from physical pain be morally wrong? Are sadists bad people? | It seems with point 3 you changed your own view. That point suggests that whether or not it's morally reprehensible is determined by someone's reason for watching.. not just the act of watching as the title view suggests.
If someone watches hockey for the fights, or nascar for the wrecks, is that morally reprehensible?
Alternatively --
> I believe that it is morally reprehensible to derive enjoyment from watching two people inflict pain on each other.
What if pain is not where the enjoyment comes from, rather it's enjoyment derived from watching two people compete at their preferred skill to determine the more skilled person?
Yes, that usually results in one or both people experiencing pain.. but so does football and many other sports. At the end of the day, the fans want to see their preferred competitor defeat their opponent.
| 5rc0p0 | CMV: Watching the UFC is morally reprehensible. | The reason I believe this is because I believe that it is morally reprehensible to derive enjoyment from watching two people inflict pain on each other. It is, to me, the human equivalent of dog fighting.
I don't think it should be illegal like dog fighting because the fights are between willing participants.
I'd like to address a few possible counterpoints to this:
1. What about other martial arts like boxing or judo?
Martial arts like judo or greco-roman wrestling aren't about striking blows but are more about technical grappling which don't really result in injury. Things like boxing or karate have a very strict point system which also favors technicality rather than submission.
2. All martial result in physical trauma.
True but the trauma is very rarely immediately visible and usually occurs over extended practice of the sport (brain damage in boxing) so the pleasure is derived from the technique and strategy.
3. There's plenty of technique involved in the UFC though.
True, with this point I differentiate between people who are passionate about the sport and understand the technique and the strategy and the casual fan who enjoys watching people beat the shit out of each other. | 1,485,906,987 | TheSemaj | dd61q6m | dd61oz5 | 10 | 1 |
CMV: Transgenderism only reinforces gender stereotypes
Feminism, as a tool for liberating women from gender oppression, shouldn't agree that gender is not necessarily linked to biological sex. Gender is something imposed just because of our individual physical conditions. Although some social performance is always associated with each gender, what define them is ultimately what we have between our legs.
Transsexuality as we now it weakens the fight for gender equality. People who "identify" as another gender are only reproducing stereotypes, not breaking them as they believe they are. Female oppression historically linked to their bodies, so ignoring or underastimating these questions is as good as sweeping things under the carpet.
| Right. But what are they based on? Even though it's pretty hard, and almost impossible, to define a sensation or a feeling, there must be some way to put it in words and explain it in a more universal way. | The characteristic in this case is their internal, subjective view of themself. It doesn't have to do with societies standards of how men or women should dress or act. | 5rc58f | CMV: Transgenderism only reinforces gender stereotypes | Feminism, as a tool for liberating women from gender oppression, shouldn't agree that gender is not necessarily linked to biological sex. Gender is something imposed just because of our individual physical conditions. Although some social performance is always associated with each gender, what define them is ultimately what we have between our legs.
Transsexuality as we now it weakens the fight for gender equality. People who "identify" as another gender are only reproducing stereotypes, not breaking them as they believe they are. Female oppression historically linked to their bodies, so ignoring or underastimating these questions is as good as sweeping things under the carpet.
| 1,485,908,299 | dretriever | dd64sii | dd64e55 | 4 | 2 |
CMV:Trump's position on immigration seems best for our nation.
_____
With all the protests going on, I am of the mindset that people are protesting everything and anything Trump proposes. In this particular case, it seems like the best thing that can be done for the safety of our country. By extending the vetting process, we are more likely getting less potential terrorists. And no one can deny that the terrorists have come from these countries, primarily. And please, before you retort with, "What about Saudi Arabia and Egypt?", I think the answer is simply that the 7 counties on the list have very unstable governments.
I will admit that I am right leaning, but certainly open to being educated and having my opinion changed.
Further, I do feel sorry for refugees, but why is it always the USA's responsibility to help the world?
Thank you. | When Obama temporarily halted processing of visas from Iraq, he did so
1. In response to a specific, identifiable thread,
2. Limited his order to only the relevant areas,
3. Maintained the order for the length of time it took to implement a procedure to counter the threat that motivated the order.
Trump, by contrast
1. Promised to halt all Muslim immigration into the country until we could "figure out what's going on."
2. Doubled down on that when challenged.
3. Insisted that he had no reason to rethink any of that when challenged more.
4. When asked what enhanced vetting he wanted, made some really ridiculous statements about quizzing incoming Muslim immigrants and visa applicants on their religious beliefs and trying to get them to admit if they supported terrorism (I 100% guarantee you that any actual radicalized Muslim would just lie...)
5. Made a series of false statements about how immigration and refugee status work.
6. Asked Guiliani to come up with a way to fulfill his promise to prohibit all Muslim entrance into the country as much as possible without being illegal.
7. Came up with the current plan.
8. Restricted it to the countries in question for legal cover and not because those countries pose a particular threat relative to other countries not covered (see, eg, who actually commits acts of terror, and more importantly, see Guiliani's happy acknowledgment that this is why he did it this way)
9. Is now desperately scrambling to come up with some way that vetting processes can be changed so that he can say he did what he promised for a reason, and not just to be a jerk and to appeal to people who are themselves jerks
10. Wrote the order to prohibit existing visa holders and permanent legal residents from entering the country
11. Had his administration confirm to Immigration that his order meant exactly what it said
12. Backtracked on that the moment a judge told him that what he was doing was illegal
13. Lied and claimed that his new position was the same position he always had, even though everyone around him was confirming that the order as written covers existing permanent legal residents, and the order itself is clear.
--------
If Trump had said, "Here is a specific list of reasonable and workable things I want immigration to do to vet visa holders, immigrants, and refugees. Processing of new applicants is on pause until training and implementation is complete." I actually would be on board.
But this is a clown show, but with the angry mean sort of clown that stabs you. | ISIS's strategy for recruitment involves using terrorist attacks to drive a wedge between Western governments and muslim populations living under them. The hope is that this leads these muslims to be alienated and drawn to their cause.
While it's not explicitly a muslim ban, it's hardly a secret that Trump has talked about registering muslims, and possibly banning them from entry to the U.S. on the campaign trail. This risks playing to ISIS's strategy, by increasing the feelings of alienation among Muslim-Americans.
As for the refugees, for me it's a simple utilitarian calculation. The cost to them of staying in Syria is higher than the cost to Westerners of accepting them. Arguably everyone ought to help, but let's not allow the diffusion of responsibility lead to inaction.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Here's [a source](http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/INTSUM_Summary_update.pdf) for my claim about ISIS's strategy
>ISIS began a new phase of its Far Abroad campaign in January 2015. This effort is focused on punishing anti-ISIS coalition members in addition to exacerbating and exploiting internal divisions within European countries. ISIS has encouraged lone wolf attacks and sent foreign fighters back to Europe to execute spectacular attacks with the support of cross-border radical networks. ISIS plans to attack any nation that strikes its Caliphate. It also aims to incite popular reactions and security responses that polarize European society, thus causing marginalized individuals to join ISIS. This effect supports ISIS’s plan to eliminate neutral parties through either absorption or elimination, in preparation of eventual all-out battle with the West.
| 5rc6a3 | CMV:Trump's position on immigration seems best for our nation. |
_____
With all the protests going on, I am of the mindset that people are protesting everything and anything Trump proposes. In this particular case, it seems like the best thing that can be done for the safety of our country. By extending the vetting process, we are more likely getting less potential terrorists. And no one can deny that the terrorists have come from these countries, primarily. And please, before you retort with, "What about Saudi Arabia and Egypt?", I think the answer is simply that the 7 counties on the list have very unstable governments.
I will admit that I am right leaning, but certainly open to being educated and having my opinion changed.
Further, I do feel sorry for refugees, but why is it always the USA's responsibility to help the world?
Thank you. | 1,485,908,613 | thegabescat | dd64zab | dd63zvk | 7 | 3 |
CMV: A "Muslim ban" is a good idea.
A lot of people are very unhappy with President Trump's action to restrict people from certain countries from immigrating and visiting the United States, but I honestly believe that this isn't a bad idea. In fact, I don't think that a full on "Muslim ban" where we just ban people who believe in Islam from coming to the country outright is a bad idea either.
Islam is a dangerous ideology, and the core beliefs of Islam are incompatible with western beliefs. For example, in the west, we've come to accept homosexuals, and we believe that women deserve far more rights in first-world countries like the United States than anyone in a Muslim country believes in.
I do not believe that all Muslims are bad people, but it's not possible for us to differentiate between a "good Muslim" and a "bad Muslim", and some Muslims become radicalised even if they seem like don't act that way beforehand. If I had a bowl of strawberries that all looked, smelt, and felt the same, and some of them were poisonous, the best solution would be to simply not eat any strawberries.
One of the most common arguments against this idea is that it's unconstituitonal because the constitution protects freedom of religion, but the constituion applies to U.S. citizens, and these are immigrants we're talking about here. No one who is a U.S. citizen will have their religious freedom taken away. No extra action is going to be done against the Muslims that are already U.S. citizens. This is just a way of dealing with immigrants that could be potentially violent.
Also, there are people who say that this is "racist" or hateful towards Muslims, but this isn't a criticism of Muslims specifically, but rather a criticism of Islam. This is a criticism towards the ideology rather than the people who follow it.
Last of all, there's the argument that we'll just make terrorism worse if a Muslim ban is implemented. If a Muslim ban is enough for more terrorism to happen because of Islam, it's really doing nothing more than proving my point that Islam is a dangerous, violent ideology. We must take some form of defensive measure to protect ourselves against a violent ideology like Islam, and doing nothing about it because we fear that it'll get worse if we do something about it is contradictory. | > For example, in the west, we've come to accept homosexuals, and we believe that women deserve far more rights in first-world countries like the United States than anyone in a Muslim country believes in.
An all-out ban would keep lesbian muslims from coming to the US to escape the exact things you're talking about. How is that good? | I generally agree with you, however the ban shouldn't apply as a blanket to all Muslims. Some subsets of the Islamic faith, notably [Ahmadiyya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya#Distinct_teachings) are extremely peaceful(relative to other religions).
You would need to be a lot more specific with the wording of the ban in order to exclude groups like this while including groups that are actually the problem(such as Wahhabi). | 5rc9ow | CMV: A "Muslim ban" is a good idea. | A lot of people are very unhappy with President Trump's action to restrict people from certain countries from immigrating and visiting the United States, but I honestly believe that this isn't a bad idea. In fact, I don't think that a full on "Muslim ban" where we just ban people who believe in Islam from coming to the country outright is a bad idea either.
Islam is a dangerous ideology, and the core beliefs of Islam are incompatible with western beliefs. For example, in the west, we've come to accept homosexuals, and we believe that women deserve far more rights in first-world countries like the United States than anyone in a Muslim country believes in.
I do not believe that all Muslims are bad people, but it's not possible for us to differentiate between a "good Muslim" and a "bad Muslim", and some Muslims become radicalised even if they seem like don't act that way beforehand. If I had a bowl of strawberries that all looked, smelt, and felt the same, and some of them were poisonous, the best solution would be to simply not eat any strawberries.
One of the most common arguments against this idea is that it's unconstituitonal because the constitution protects freedom of religion, but the constituion applies to U.S. citizens, and these are immigrants we're talking about here. No one who is a U.S. citizen will have their religious freedom taken away. No extra action is going to be done against the Muslims that are already U.S. citizens. This is just a way of dealing with immigrants that could be potentially violent.
Also, there are people who say that this is "racist" or hateful towards Muslims, but this isn't a criticism of Muslims specifically, but rather a criticism of Islam. This is a criticism towards the ideology rather than the people who follow it.
Last of all, there's the argument that we'll just make terrorism worse if a Muslim ban is implemented. If a Muslim ban is enough for more terrorism to happen because of Islam, it's really doing nothing more than proving my point that Islam is a dangerous, violent ideology. We must take some form of defensive measure to protect ourselves against a violent ideology like Islam, and doing nothing about it because we fear that it'll get worse if we do something about it is contradictory. | 1,485,909,639 | Redustries | dd648st | dd63zbi | 7 | 2 |
CMV:On the national level, there are few to no candidates for a liberal person to pick to represent them
Ok so I consider myself fairly liberal. Not far out there by any means, but definitely to the left. When i look at things actually done by the democrat party and a lot of democrats, I really question if they're liberal or simply centrist, specifically with how a lot of members of the party tend to only pick up causes after they've become popular and noteworthy and only seem to push for it as a whole after they achieve a high degree of popularity, such as gay marriage which only seemed to start really gaining traction well after it'd passed a 50% approval overall - and well after what I'd probably consider a liberal majority actually would be in favor of it. By contrast, republican politicians seem to actually be fairly right leaning and tend to move only when their conservative base does regardless of actual overall opinion.
I also end up with this opinion due to things like the single payer system, which is fairly normal among a lot of countries but labeled as left wing extremism or socialism by a lot of people in the US.
I'm not saying representation doesn't exist, I just believe its a lot more sparse than a person on the right might see in the US, but there's always the possibility I'm further to the left than I realize.
Edit: I am going to try to get another round of responses tonight (2/2) when I get home again. Work ran long last night and is hard to reply here properly on mobile. Sorry to those I haven't gotten to yet | First off you have to look at American politics and understand that the US left is drastically different than the European left. The democrats are socially liberal, but they do tend to be more liberal in the classical meaning of the term than many more left leaning Americans like.
A bit more "You do you, I'll do me, and lets not give a shit about what each other is doing unless it is affecting each other"
In Europe liberalism is actually far more of a right wing/ centrist concept, while in America it is far more left wing. Basically it comes down to a cultural difference in how things are talked about. Liberal really isn't a synonym for left wing.
Popular liberal movements arise when there is a recognition of an injustice, but for the most part it tends to traditionally be a bit more of a users choice party. Now sure there are progressive elements of the party, and more socially liberal elements, who work for social improvements. But for american politics these are more left wing than what would be considered left wing in europe. But once again; You can only really talk about a nation's politics under its own context and have understanding of it.
Another way to look at it, is the American left is far more diverse than the American right. The Democrats form coalitions of far more diverse groups with their own intrestes, while the republicans are built on a pretty constant voter base; so it takes far longer for social movements to be agreed upon by all the democratic base since they hold such different views.
>I also end up with this opinion due to things like the single payer system, which is fairly normal among a lot of countries but labeled as left wing extremism or socialism by a lot of people in the US.
Well lets be honest about it, a single payer system is a fairly socialist concept... Remember the european left is far more left than the american left, and socialism doesn't have the same stigma as it does in the US. But at the same time you have to realize that the European left is far less liberal than the American left.
>I'm not saying representation doesn't exist, I just believe its a lot more sparse than a person on the right might see in the US, but there's always the possibility I'm further to the left than I realize.
I think you probably are to the further left than many Americans probably falling in more with the progressives than american liberals. But really we are all kinda lumped together a bit differently. | > Well there isn't an election coming up anytime soon... there's no candidates for any type of person to pick.
2018 isn't that far off. :P | 5rcg7c | CMV:On the national level, there are few to no candidates for a liberal person to pick to represent them | Ok so I consider myself fairly liberal. Not far out there by any means, but definitely to the left. When i look at things actually done by the democrat party and a lot of democrats, I really question if they're liberal or simply centrist, specifically with how a lot of members of the party tend to only pick up causes after they've become popular and noteworthy and only seem to push for it as a whole after they achieve a high degree of popularity, such as gay marriage which only seemed to start really gaining traction well after it'd passed a 50% approval overall - and well after what I'd probably consider a liberal majority actually would be in favor of it. By contrast, republican politicians seem to actually be fairly right leaning and tend to move only when their conservative base does regardless of actual overall opinion.
I also end up with this opinion due to things like the single payer system, which is fairly normal among a lot of countries but labeled as left wing extremism or socialism by a lot of people in the US.
I'm not saying representation doesn't exist, I just believe its a lot more sparse than a person on the right might see in the US, but there's always the possibility I'm further to the left than I realize.
Edit: I am going to try to get another round of responses tonight (2/2) when I get home again. Work ran long last night and is hard to reply here properly on mobile. Sorry to those I haven't gotten to yet | 1,485,911,567 | flamedragon822 | dd672hs | dd65b9x | 1 | 0 |
CMV: Some of Hillary Clinton's Supporters Have Become Almost As Bad As Trump's
Before I begin, I'm not implying most Hillary Clinton supporters are bad. In fact I've heard stories of people who regret having anything to do with her and stories of supporters trying to be humble in regards to her. But there are those who have seriously become so delusional that they can easily be compared to Trump supporters.
First, Hillary's background. Hillary deserves a lot of hate for her action. She allowed corporations to have greater influence over the Democratic Party, forced party members to fight against Bernie, broke the law in regards to emails, and has stuck up to corrupt elites. Despite the fact that she has so much dirt, many passionate supporters and liberals try to excuse this and try to persuade people that she is actually good for this nation. They think that she will bring change when really she is much more corrupt for that. Many Americans hate her and don't want her as a politician but her supporters don't care and blindly believe she will win. Reminds me of the relationship between Trump and his supporters.
Second, the blame game. Hillary deserved a lot of hate for her actions. Even worse she made the campaign all about her and looked down at the opposition as "deplorables". Her campaign overlooked the white voting bloc since it arrogantly believed that minorities and blue state strongholds would bring her to victory. Even Bernie's supporters were frustrated at the arrogant nature of the campaign. And who did the hardcore Hillary fans felt? They blamed everything from Bernie supporters to false news to the people investigating Hillary for her loss. They think they ruined this election just because they criticized her. Can you imagine if Trump lost and his supporters did this?
And third, they arrogantly believe that they are the best and those that have any dislike of her are losers. Like they guilt other liberals into getting them to support Hillary wholeheartedly despite her having an unfair advantage. Then they blame Bernie supporters that helped them for their loss. They dismiss the concerns of conservatives and call the problems as racism and sexism. Never mind the opposition's actual legitimate grievances.
They are so annoying on social media because they will find any scapegoat but Hillary for her loss. They are clinging on to someone that isn't really worth supporting. When given evidence of her wrongdoing they shout down anyone doing that. And they wonder why progressives like me are shifting away from the mainstream.
Hillary's hardcore supporters have made us liberals the laughingstock for the hardcore right. They are very comparable to Trump supporters though they are still better than some Trump supporters. Nonetheless I cannot help but feel annoyed at their antics and their denial of the facts.
Sorry if this is a long one but I really needed to get this off my chest. | 1. "Deserves hate" is a strong term. Deserves scrutiny? Yes. Hate? No, she was a public servant who continued to serve her country (and the world) even though the right has vilified her for a large portion of her adult life. Yes, she shouldn't have had a private email server. Yes, she shouldn't have been as dodgy about her Goldman Sachs speeches. However, saying these faults warrant hate is problematic. If that deserves hate, what do you think President Trump's conflicts of interest deserve? I thought Clinton would be better, on the whole, than Trump. Once we got past the primary, that was all that mattered to me, so I did what I needed to do make sure that didn't happen. I canvassed, I spoke with people in my everyday life, and I voted. I'll admit that I have a lot of skin in the game as a woman in her reproductive years, as a black woman, as a black woman with LGBT friends, as a black woman with green card holder family members, etc. I have some friends who didn't vote because they said that Clinton and Trump would be the same. While I don't think they are bad people, I have spoken to them about how it made me to feel to know that someone who loves me couldn't even vote in my interest. How can I trust them to do even more important things for me? Are they willing to watch me suffer to stay true to purist ideals or some revolutionary idea that everything needs to be burned down? I am not sure if some of these relationships will be repaired.
2. Yes, Clinton lost, so she bears responsibility for that. However, do you think the factors you listed aren't legitimate concerns when it comes to this election? It wasn't anything on it's own, but it was a perfect storm. I think anyone who doesn't acknowledge Clinton's faults weakens their argument to support her.
3. Sure, some people are arrogant. That's human nature. I actively try to understand Trump supporters and other conservatives because they are human beings who deserve dignity. However, too often I speak with people who refuse to extend that same courtesy to me. If we can't at least agree that we are a worse version of ourselves when large populations of our society are living in fear, the rest of our discussion is worthless. I can't tell you how many people have belittled my experiences in America as a black woman, and I am tired of having to justify my worth as a human being, never mind as an American, to people who could care less. Some people aren't as polite or able to bottle in these feelings of resentment and anger, so I don't judge them for unproductive outpourings of this frustration. Similarly, I can imagine that people who voted for Trump and feel forgotten must feel similarly.
Would you rather hang out with the "worst" Clinton supporter or the "worst" Trump supporter? I know my answer, but that is colored by the fact that I am a black immigrant...
On a more personal note: I am definitely a less forgiving person after this election. I used to give people far more benefit of the doubt and assume best intent a lot more. My criticism is not reserved for any particular group, but I am less eager to pretend that we have common ground. This election has shown me that we all need to do better. | > She allowed corporations to have greater influence over the Democratic Party, forced party members to fight against Bernie, broke the law in regards to emails, and has stuck up to corrupt elites.
Your premise starts off badly.
Hillary Clinton did not single handedly force the democratic party to be more "corporate". And she is no more corporate than any other average democrat politician.
She did not force people to fight over Bernie. Bernie Sanders resonated with a lot of young people. He did not resonate with others, like me, who thought he was unrealistically pie-in-the-sky and rallying his supporters around ideas that he knew perfectly well would never come to fruition.
She did *not* break any laws regarding her emails. I will repeat this for the n-hundreth time: she did **not** break **any** laws with her emails. Not one single law was broken. You and others might choose to interpret her actions as illegal but they were not. The way you know they were not is because she was never charged, much less prosecuted. It's time to drop the email bullshit.
I believe you meant to say "sucked up to corporate elites". And yes, she did do that. So does everyone else. You know why? Because that's how you get elected. Politics in this country is about money. You have to kiss a lot of ass to get that money.
Only recently have some politicians been able to turn out a base of people making small donations and have that count for something real. But the people who do that are fickle and unpredictable. There's no telling what you will choose to care about on a given day. Any any given time, you could lose your shit and there goes that money.
So, beginning with your premise, you're in rocky territory. You are demonstrating a pretty bad bias against Clinton, one that was heavily built on propaganda from the right and supported by nothing but innuendo and activity that was status quo for most of her adult life.
Now, the rest of your post seems to be "She's so bad, how can they like her, it must be fake or they are delusional." Ergo, they are just as bad as Trump supporters.
But that's just garbage. This feels like a soap box.
Clinton is a strong politician. She's center left, there can be no doubt. But the laughing stock here are the people who could not summon the attention span to look past the talking points and innuendo served up by the right and dumped on Clinton.
So what view exactly do you want changed? Trump's base IS filled with racists and sexists and homophobes. Are you really prepared to compare people who are passionate about Clinton and seek to defend her from what we perceive as unfair attacks based on little actual evidence with people who are cheering over the hundreds of people and families who are now getting deported or refused entry because of the hack that's in office?
That's your argument? | 5rdih8 | CMV: Some of Hillary Clinton's Supporters Have Become Almost As Bad As Trump's | Before I begin, I'm not implying most Hillary Clinton supporters are bad. In fact I've heard stories of people who regret having anything to do with her and stories of supporters trying to be humble in regards to her. But there are those who have seriously become so delusional that they can easily be compared to Trump supporters.
First, Hillary's background. Hillary deserves a lot of hate for her action. She allowed corporations to have greater influence over the Democratic Party, forced party members to fight against Bernie, broke the law in regards to emails, and has stuck up to corrupt elites. Despite the fact that she has so much dirt, many passionate supporters and liberals try to excuse this and try to persuade people that she is actually good for this nation. They think that she will bring change when really she is much more corrupt for that. Many Americans hate her and don't want her as a politician but her supporters don't care and blindly believe she will win. Reminds me of the relationship between Trump and his supporters.
Second, the blame game. Hillary deserved a lot of hate for her actions. Even worse she made the campaign all about her and looked down at the opposition as "deplorables". Her campaign overlooked the white voting bloc since it arrogantly believed that minorities and blue state strongholds would bring her to victory. Even Bernie's supporters were frustrated at the arrogant nature of the campaign. And who did the hardcore Hillary fans felt? They blamed everything from Bernie supporters to false news to the people investigating Hillary for her loss. They think they ruined this election just because they criticized her. Can you imagine if Trump lost and his supporters did this?
And third, they arrogantly believe that they are the best and those that have any dislike of her are losers. Like they guilt other liberals into getting them to support Hillary wholeheartedly despite her having an unfair advantage. Then they blame Bernie supporters that helped them for their loss. They dismiss the concerns of conservatives and call the problems as racism and sexism. Never mind the opposition's actual legitimate grievances.
They are so annoying on social media because they will find any scapegoat but Hillary for her loss. They are clinging on to someone that isn't really worth supporting. When given evidence of her wrongdoing they shout down anyone doing that. And they wonder why progressives like me are shifting away from the mainstream.
Hillary's hardcore supporters have made us liberals the laughingstock for the hardcore right. They are very comparable to Trump supporters though they are still better than some Trump supporters. Nonetheless I cannot help but feel annoyed at their antics and their denial of the facts.
Sorry if this is a long one but I really needed to get this off my chest. | 1,485,924,047 | RandomWriterGuy | dd6hqyo | dd6g6fh | 9 | 4 |
CMV: Even if climate change is not real or man-caused, all of the acts being recommended to counter it should happen anyway.
Abandoning fossil fuels for cleaner alternatives. Regardless of whether they cause global warming, they pollute our cities and destroy the air quality.
Ending deforestation of the rainforests. We want to preserve the habitat of rare animals and the natural beauty.
Improving public transportation. Traffic congestion is a bitch, and if I had a subway or rail system nearby to take me where I needed to go, I would love it. Cars are expensive and require your attention for the duration of your commute.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but definitely the big ones I've seen a lot. It's possible that there's some other action being recommended for climate change that I've overlooked or forgotten.
I don't believe that destroying the coal industry to grow green energy industries is a bad thing. So if you have a view of the financial aspect that's not protecting a certain industry that's more than welcome as well!
Edit: It seems that most people are bringing up economic or financial arguments. I think /u/10ebbor10 argued better than most could as to why this is a good reason, but I don't think any financial or economic argument could sway me. If you've got any negative effects of these acts or other commonly-touted acts that you think I don't know, please still share!
| ~~all~~ *many*
Some of the acts are going to be mutually exclusive. "Cleaner Alternatives" might work, but 'replace all the coal plants with solar' and 'replace all the coal plants with wind' could not *both* be done. Some options are dangerous. "Replace all coal plants with nuclear". "Dump tons of iron into the ocean". | It has been stated by scientists (in not one, I just read) that we are too far gone to stop it. None of these actions matter anymore and we should focus our energy not on stopping an unstoppable train, we should instead get on the train and figure out ways to adapt to the new climate. | 5re4lh | CMV: Even if climate change is not real or man-caused, all of the acts being recommended to counter it should happen anyway. | Abandoning fossil fuels for cleaner alternatives. Regardless of whether they cause global warming, they pollute our cities and destroy the air quality.
Ending deforestation of the rainforests. We want to preserve the habitat of rare animals and the natural beauty.
Improving public transportation. Traffic congestion is a bitch, and if I had a subway or rail system nearby to take me where I needed to go, I would love it. Cars are expensive and require your attention for the duration of your commute.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but definitely the big ones I've seen a lot. It's possible that there's some other action being recommended for climate change that I've overlooked or forgotten.
I don't believe that destroying the coal industry to grow green energy industries is a bad thing. So if you have a view of the financial aspect that's not protecting a certain industry that's more than welcome as well!
Edit: It seems that most people are bringing up economic or financial arguments. I think /u/10ebbor10 argued better than most could as to why this is a good reason, but I don't think any financial or economic argument could sway me. If you've got any negative effects of these acts or other commonly-touted acts that you think I don't know, please still share!
| 1,485,933,156 | JaxTheHobo | dd7cmx6 | dd6sckz | 5 | 1 |
CMV: America will turn into an undemocratic wasteland for decades.
We are a week into Trump's presidency. Say at best he's impeached in March. At best. He's going to deregulate everything. Our once great American landscape will be turned into private 400 million dollar mansions. Half the world will hate us. Big pharma will jack prices up and let legal narcotics into the wild where it can thrive on new-found addicts. Big companies will have the run of the place, cutting minimum wage, minimum benefits, hour caps, workers rights. And those poor people with shit jobs and a shit economy won't get any help from the government, because he's going to get rid of healthcare and public programs. Nasa might get enough of a budget to make a couple potato guns. I'm going to say if he isn't out by summer, we will be at war with at least one more country. News networks being shut down by a fascist leader. Global warming will probably speed up. Natural disasters are increasing, how much aid do you think he'll send for relief? Say good bye to public education. Public housing. Public transit. Public highways. Public parks. Discrimination. I just... Don't think I need to explain that one.
Obviously not everything on this list will happen by the end of March, but it will start. And what if he is impeached that soon? Are Republicans going to be onboard with reinstating socialist policies? You know, they have to make sure they get their reelection bid for 2018, can't disappoint their constituents. And what about all of Trump's appointees? Idiots in the cabinet that don't know a goddamn thing about how countries work. They will wreak havoc on the country long after trump is gone. Not to mention, many experienced members of government will have left or been fired.
I'm starting to understand the fear that Republicans must have felt five years ago. Holy shit. This is uncontrollable. I don't blame them that much now. They were just scared. Unlucky enough to convince each other the sky was falling, but scared nonetheless.
Back to my original point, I have to finish out school here. At least another two years. I couldn't imagine someone could do this much damage in a week, but what's the next thing I say? I couldn't imagine that Trump would tear the country apart? I couldn't imagine that America would fall? I couldn't imagine WWIII would be taught to my kids? I couldn't imagine a nuclear war? But I said to myself two weeks ago that Trump won't be that bad. But he is.
Sorry for that poorly worded rant against Trump. I'm scared. I don't know what to do. Help me? Convince me that Trump won't destroy the world? Lead me into ignorance or enlightenment, I don't care, I'll take it. | >Nasa might get enough of a budget to make a couple potato guns.
Trump wants to increase funding to NASA by shifting money from NOAA back to NASA. He has talked about space exploration many times, so there's nothing to fear there.
> Public transit. Public highways. Public parks.
Trump actually goes against the Republican party by wanting a massive infrastructure bill, which will rebuild our bridges, interstates, parks, etc... | Sorry. I should have phrased it "can you really blame them for expecting all the bad things to happen, even without explicit evidence yet?" My bad.
The point I'm making is that Trump is making insanely bad decisions and its reaching a point where you can't really knock people for assuming the worst. Those things might not have been said explicitly, but they are, in essence, the direction he is taking things and in line with what we have seen. | 5re6nr | CMV: America will turn into an undemocratic wasteland for decades. | We are a week into Trump's presidency. Say at best he's impeached in March. At best. He's going to deregulate everything. Our once great American landscape will be turned into private 400 million dollar mansions. Half the world will hate us. Big pharma will jack prices up and let legal narcotics into the wild where it can thrive on new-found addicts. Big companies will have the run of the place, cutting minimum wage, minimum benefits, hour caps, workers rights. And those poor people with shit jobs and a shit economy won't get any help from the government, because he's going to get rid of healthcare and public programs. Nasa might get enough of a budget to make a couple potato guns. I'm going to say if he isn't out by summer, we will be at war with at least one more country. News networks being shut down by a fascist leader. Global warming will probably speed up. Natural disasters are increasing, how much aid do you think he'll send for relief? Say good bye to public education. Public housing. Public transit. Public highways. Public parks. Discrimination. I just... Don't think I need to explain that one.
Obviously not everything on this list will happen by the end of March, but it will start. And what if he is impeached that soon? Are Republicans going to be onboard with reinstating socialist policies? You know, they have to make sure they get their reelection bid for 2018, can't disappoint their constituents. And what about all of Trump's appointees? Idiots in the cabinet that don't know a goddamn thing about how countries work. They will wreak havoc on the country long after trump is gone. Not to mention, many experienced members of government will have left or been fired.
I'm starting to understand the fear that Republicans must have felt five years ago. Holy shit. This is uncontrollable. I don't blame them that much now. They were just scared. Unlucky enough to convince each other the sky was falling, but scared nonetheless.
Back to my original point, I have to finish out school here. At least another two years. I couldn't imagine someone could do this much damage in a week, but what's the next thing I say? I couldn't imagine that Trump would tear the country apart? I couldn't imagine that America would fall? I couldn't imagine WWIII would be taught to my kids? I couldn't imagine a nuclear war? But I said to myself two weeks ago that Trump won't be that bad. But he is.
Sorry for that poorly worded rant against Trump. I'm scared. I don't know what to do. Help me? Convince me that Trump won't destroy the world? Lead me into ignorance or enlightenment, I don't care, I'll take it. | 1,485,934,196 | lunch_aint_on_me | dd6kyiy | dd6ks89 | 8 | 3 |
CMV: I think that everyone who is anti-LGBT rights are my enemy
Yes, it is quite "extremist", if you would like to call it that way. I'm quite aware of that, in fact, which is probably why I'm here.
I mean, I'm bisexual. I fail to see why I should empathize with someone who wants to... Screw with my life? The way I see it, it's not a question of disagreeing. It doesn't affect you. Why are you against it? There's no reason to be against it.
That's why I have this view. I fail to see this as a matter of disagreement. Most of those people consider me less than a human being, and that makes me think that the only thing I should consider them is as my enemies.
| Where are you drawing the line though? I know some people who aren't big fans of the Gay Pride parades, but would still advocate for LGBT rights. Would these people be your enemy? What about the LGBTQ+ etc stuff. There isn't a general consensus on who is considered LGBTQ+ and who isn't. We've got all these new sexualities springing up. Would you consider someone your enemy if they disagreed with those? | Do you really mean 'Anti LGBT rights' or do you mean 'Anti Bisexual rights'?
There is a huge amount of disagreement within LGBT groups due to the clashing of different 'rights' which are being demanded, so a person could easily be supportive of your B rights while being against all the LGBT rights which are being demanded. | 5reqqf | CMV: I think that everyone who is anti-LGBT rights are my enemy | Yes, it is quite "extremist", if you would like to call it that way. I'm quite aware of that, in fact, which is probably why I'm here.
I mean, I'm bisexual. I fail to see why I should empathize with someone who wants to... Screw with my life? The way I see it, it's not a question of disagreeing. It doesn't affect you. Why are you against it? There's no reason to be against it.
That's why I have this view. I fail to see this as a matter of disagreement. Most of those people consider me less than a human being, and that makes me think that the only thing I should consider them is as my enemies.
| 1,485,944,583 | Hazeringx | dd6nrg7 | dd6nk6p | 12 | 2 |
CMV: The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution means that federal laws with regard to health insurance, drug prohibition, and abortion legalization are illegal and should be left to the states
I have come to believe that the Conservative view of the Constitution is the correct one in at least one sense: If the rule of law is to mean anything, we need to follow the Constitution as written. The Tenth Amendment specifically and unambiguously states **"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."**
This means that federal laws with regard to health insurance, drug prohibition, and abortion legalization are illegal and should be left to the states. It says it right there in the Constitution. If we are to pass such laws at the federal level, we need to amend the Constitution. Anything else ("commerce clause covers Obamacare!") is a rationalization.
| You say "commerce clause is a rationalization" but you don't explain why.
We have the commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which gives the Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and **among the several states**, and with the Indian tribes.”"
Health insurance, drug prohibitions, etc. all have a direct effect on trade among states - hence why the congress has explicit power to pass laws regulating those things.
| In effect, your view is defensible, but not with the argument you provided.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
Sure, powers not delegated. Seems pretty clear. But there's a missing word: "Expressly." That word was present in a similar clause in the Articles of Confederation, and the framers took it out. This suggests that not all powers of the federal government are expressly provided, but may be implied.
For instance, can congress pass laws to punish interfering with U.S. mail? Find me any enumerated power that says congress can do that.
| 5rfy4a | CMV: The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution means that federal laws with regard to health insurance, drug prohibition, and abortion legalization are illegal and should be left to the states | I have come to believe that the Conservative view of the Constitution is the correct one in at least one sense: If the rule of law is to mean anything, we need to follow the Constitution as written. The Tenth Amendment specifically and unambiguously states **"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."**
This means that federal laws with regard to health insurance, drug prohibition, and abortion legalization are illegal and should be left to the states. It says it right there in the Constitution. If we are to pass such laws at the federal level, we need to amend the Constitution. Anything else ("commerce clause covers Obamacare!") is a rationalization.
| 1,485,961,494 | kickstand | dd6xd8s | dd6x6mk | 6 | 3 |
CMV: Science is frequently corrupted by financial issues
In the vast majority of cases, I am sure that the scientific consensus is more likely to be correct than opposing views are. And in the specific case of climate change, I have no doubt that the scientific consensus is absolutely right.
However, there is an overwhelmingly common cause of exceptions spanning widely different scientific disciplines. That common cause is **financial influence corrupting the truth.**
Perhaps because our society pays teachers and scientists so poorly relative to, e.g., professional athletes and entertainers, many otherwise entirely ethical scientists in most if not all fields of science fall prey to the corrupting influence of money far more often than most people realize. Let me give you some examples, which I will link to some recent posts and comments on Reddit where I have been discussing them:
[**Black hole dark matter**](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/5ncwyb/170102544_inflationary_primordial_black_holes_as/) explains the abundance of early quasars, the absence of expected dwarf galaxies, the so-called "cuspy halo problem," and other aspects which the far more popular weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) theory of dark matter, for which there is not a smidgen of observational evidence (unlike black holes: the Japanese discovered the first intermediate mass black hole in the Milky Way just last year, after about 60 stellar mass black holes had been cataloged in our galaxy) does not. But what do WIMPs have that black holes don't? Literally thousands of tenured and tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and lab technicians whose research bibliographies, fellowships (often graduate students' sole source of income), and jobs are predicated on their existence. So [the joke's on you, black holes.](http://jensorensen.com/2014/03/17/corporate-cosmos/)
[**Carbon neutral synthetic fuels:**](https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/5qs0uw/what_should_you_do_if_technology_you_want_to_work/) You can make methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and even kerosene jet fuel from recycled carbon, or even the carbonic acid destroying coral reefs in ocean water. The U.S. has been developing the process intently since 1965, and when it became economical from off-peak electricity, nighttime nuclear and wind power in particular, the U.S. Strategic "Petroleum" Reserve stopped buying while continuing to sell, and the number of [oilers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_oiler) in aircraft carrier fleets fell from the upper teens to the mid single digits, while their port call docking frequency to fill up plummeted even further. Why can't you buy carbon neutral fuel at the pump? Most likely a secret agreement, called the Bitter Lake accord, to buy Saudi oil in return for their assurance to refrain from attacks against Israel and Iran.
[**Mosquito abatement.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/5quo6i/if_a_general_strike_is_called_reporters_will/dd4l47x/) Back in the 1960s, when dengue fever was eradicated in the US, the "BT" mosquito bits and dunks you could buy in the hardware store lasted five years, which is how often the World Health Organization recommended applying it. The strains back then were similar to those found persisting in nature, with both floating and sinking spores. But sometime around 1977, the seven BT manufacturers found out they could sell a whole lot more BTI without sinking spores, because sunlight killed the floating spores in weeks to months. So now the WHO says, screw that, just [put it in your drinking water](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/thuringiensis/en/) but of course the US EPA won't allow that because it would disturb bakers and everyone else who expects drinking water to be free from bacteria. And guess what has re-emerged in the U.S.? Dengue fever.
**[Pesticides killing polinator insects,](http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees) and creating superweeds via transgenic contamination.** I guess I haven't been talking about superweeds on Reddit a whole lot, but both are easy to Google. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (who want to merge, of course) fight these truths tooth-and-nail in industry, academia, government, and the media, so I'll just link to some more sources about how [neonicotinoids contaminate the environment, killing helpful bugs,](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12372/pdf) including [fireflies](http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/entomo/OOGCBV/2008/v47n3/OOGCBV_2008_v47n3_265.pdf) and how [Bayer made the Royal Society have to retract a bunch of work](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1818/20151821.full#app-1) they clandestinely funded, and have been [astroturfing long after they got caught at it.](http://britishbeekeeping.com/) But the sheer amount of money Bayer and Monsanto can bring to bear in sponsoring research, paying for scientists' junkets, and just good old-fashioned tobacco- and fossil fuel-style media disinformation campaigns have kept these correct views far from the scientific mainstream.
Do you need more examples? I have plenty. Fusion power creates more radioactive waste than fission. Polygraphs required for security clearances are inaccurate and penalize the innocent. Antibiotic use practices on farms are very unwise, and aren't much better for people. Seriously, I've got plenty more where these come from. | I'll just comment on the black hole dark matter comment, since I work in the field of dark matter detection.
tl;dr -- you are simply misinformed
While primordial black holes are indeed one of the few possible alternatives to WIMP dark matter that have not been exhaustively ruled out, they are nonetheless in pretty severe tension with data. Except for perhaps some very narrow mass ranges or liberal allowances for larger-than-thought uncertainties, primordial black holes almost certainly cannot account for 100% of dark matter, due to constraints from gamma rays from evaporation, gamma ray bursts, neutron star capture, microlensing, wide binary disruptions, dynamical friction, and the cosmic microwave background.
Further, even putting aside the myriad empirical evidence, there are so many arguments for WIMP dark matter from so many angles (SUSY; the so-called "WIMP miracle"; WIMPs are totally mundane and totally generically it would be kind of weird for them NOT to exist; etc), that the contextualization of your description is highly misleading. No one working in dark matter is absolutely sure that WIMPs exist, and to be sure there are alternatives (which are also funded, such as axion searches as well as searches relating to black holes) but dispassionately looking at the evidence it is clear that it would be extremely foolish not to look for WIMPs. | First I will note that there are times when money can corrupt science, but that really does tend to be filtered out by peer review, you know a part of the scientific process. The thing is, a lot of your stuff really does start to go into conspiracy theory territory, and assume we know or are capable of far more than we actually are.
>Black Hole Dark Matter
First off evidence of black holes is not the same as evidence of black hole dark matter. The concept of primordial black holes is one theoretical explination for dark matter, but so are WIMPs on top of that its a theory with far less mathmatical backing given our current understanding of black holes. On top of that given the experiments at the Fermi telescope the theory has fallen more and more out of favor.
>Synthetic fuels
Ohhhh god. So here is the thing about synthetic fuels, the most economical production of them still takes natural gas or coal, and that is BARELY an economic process. Many of the plants that actually create synthetic gas actually are experimental right now. Shell has one plant that it just opened in 2011 and it hasn't been able to keep up with its designed production numbers. Its not some giant conspericy, rather just currently not a good process and far from as viable as you are painting it as.
>Mosquito Abatement
First off you're missing population changes in mosquitos being a thing, and the fact that that newer strains of BTI were used because they didn't effect non target organisms.
>Pesticides killing polinator insects, and creating superweeds via transgenic contamination
Well is it not science fighting back against these problems? I mean the scientific method is all about the data and peer review. If it werent for that then honestly you would never know about these problems to begin with. On top of that its a bit more complex in the actual scientific literature than you are painting for example in the Douglas et all paper notes:
>Pest management scientists have long known that pesticides
can impose trade-offs in agricultural production,
and in fact, such discoveries were part of the impetus
behind developing integrated pest management (IPM) as
a knowledge-based alternative to the indiscriminate use
of pesticides (Stern et al. 1959). In most cropping systems,
neonicotinoid seed treatments are being used outside
of an IPM framework (e.g. Gray 2012), and, as we
show here, this indiscriminant use can have unintended
consequences, with measurable costs for farmers. Using
neonicotinoids only when and where they are needed,
guided by a strong understanding of the underlying ecology,
provides potential to harness their strengths and
limit their weaknesses to achieve more sustainable pest
control.
In otherwords this really only is talking about use outside of the IPM framework and is trying to encourage farmers to really follow that framework.
I cant read korean for your second paper, and your Royal Society paper never retracts data from what I could tell, rather they just acknowledged that some experiments in their lab were funded by Bayer. Which is far from clandestine. I'm not saying that these companies aren't doing shitty things sometimes (remember the beekeepers thing was discovered by scientists), but the actual science is a bit more complex than you are painting it as. | 5rg4pu | CMV: Science is frequently corrupted by financial issues | In the vast majority of cases, I am sure that the scientific consensus is more likely to be correct than opposing views are. And in the specific case of climate change, I have no doubt that the scientific consensus is absolutely right.
However, there is an overwhelmingly common cause of exceptions spanning widely different scientific disciplines. That common cause is **financial influence corrupting the truth.**
Perhaps because our society pays teachers and scientists so poorly relative to, e.g., professional athletes and entertainers, many otherwise entirely ethical scientists in most if not all fields of science fall prey to the corrupting influence of money far more often than most people realize. Let me give you some examples, which I will link to some recent posts and comments on Reddit where I have been discussing them:
[**Black hole dark matter**](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/5ncwyb/170102544_inflationary_primordial_black_holes_as/) explains the abundance of early quasars, the absence of expected dwarf galaxies, the so-called "cuspy halo problem," and other aspects which the far more popular weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) theory of dark matter, for which there is not a smidgen of observational evidence (unlike black holes: the Japanese discovered the first intermediate mass black hole in the Milky Way just last year, after about 60 stellar mass black holes had been cataloged in our galaxy) does not. But what do WIMPs have that black holes don't? Literally thousands of tenured and tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and lab technicians whose research bibliographies, fellowships (often graduate students' sole source of income), and jobs are predicated on their existence. So [the joke's on you, black holes.](http://jensorensen.com/2014/03/17/corporate-cosmos/)
[**Carbon neutral synthetic fuels:**](https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/5qs0uw/what_should_you_do_if_technology_you_want_to_work/) You can make methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and even kerosene jet fuel from recycled carbon, or even the carbonic acid destroying coral reefs in ocean water. The U.S. has been developing the process intently since 1965, and when it became economical from off-peak electricity, nighttime nuclear and wind power in particular, the U.S. Strategic "Petroleum" Reserve stopped buying while continuing to sell, and the number of [oilers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_oiler) in aircraft carrier fleets fell from the upper teens to the mid single digits, while their port call docking frequency to fill up plummeted even further. Why can't you buy carbon neutral fuel at the pump? Most likely a secret agreement, called the Bitter Lake accord, to buy Saudi oil in return for their assurance to refrain from attacks against Israel and Iran.
[**Mosquito abatement.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/5quo6i/if_a_general_strike_is_called_reporters_will/dd4l47x/) Back in the 1960s, when dengue fever was eradicated in the US, the "BT" mosquito bits and dunks you could buy in the hardware store lasted five years, which is how often the World Health Organization recommended applying it. The strains back then were similar to those found persisting in nature, with both floating and sinking spores. But sometime around 1977, the seven BT manufacturers found out they could sell a whole lot more BTI without sinking spores, because sunlight killed the floating spores in weeks to months. So now the WHO says, screw that, just [put it in your drinking water](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/thuringiensis/en/) but of course the US EPA won't allow that because it would disturb bakers and everyone else who expects drinking water to be free from bacteria. And guess what has re-emerged in the U.S.? Dengue fever.
**[Pesticides killing polinator insects,](http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/epa-finds-major-pesticide-toxic-bees) and creating superweeds via transgenic contamination.** I guess I haven't been talking about superweeds on Reddit a whole lot, but both are easy to Google. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (who want to merge, of course) fight these truths tooth-and-nail in industry, academia, government, and the media, so I'll just link to some more sources about how [neonicotinoids contaminate the environment, killing helpful bugs,](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12372/pdf) including [fireflies](http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/entomo/OOGCBV/2008/v47n3/OOGCBV_2008_v47n3_265.pdf) and how [Bayer made the Royal Society have to retract a bunch of work](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1818/20151821.full#app-1) they clandestinely funded, and have been [astroturfing long after they got caught at it.](http://britishbeekeeping.com/) But the sheer amount of money Bayer and Monsanto can bring to bear in sponsoring research, paying for scientists' junkets, and just good old-fashioned tobacco- and fossil fuel-style media disinformation campaigns have kept these correct views far from the scientific mainstream.
Do you need more examples? I have plenty. Fusion power creates more radioactive waste than fission. Polygraphs required for security clearances are inaccurate and penalize the innocent. Antibiotic use practices on farms are very unwise, and aren't much better for people. Seriously, I've got plenty more where these come from. | 1,485,963,417 | jsalsman | dd76vd9 | dd71l52 | 3 | 1 |
CMV: Using illegal psychedelic drugs is unnatural, disturbing and shameful, and therefore, and I believe that anyone who does use them needs immediate mental help.
**EDIT: I apologise for not awarding Deltas to people. I honestly had no idea what Deltas even were. I never read the sidebar or even noticed the Delta symbol on people's posts. My view on this was partially changed and I thank everyone here for responding to this.**
First, let me be clear on one thing: I’m leaving cannabis out of this CMV. Cannabis is now very accepted as it is legal and decriminalized in many places, not to mention medically legal. As a drug, it’s no longer taboo, it’s just a healthier form of smoking that can’t kill you (but can still be bad for you). However, I still just cannot understand why any sane, normal, self-respecting human being, would take still-illegal and heavily taboo psychedelic drugs, like LSD, shrooms, MDMA, etc.
Also, a bit of background about myself, to make it clearer about why I currently hold these views:
1. I was raised to be law-abiding by law-abiding parents.
2. I did well in school, and wasn’t a rebellious teenager.
3. I was also an outcast in school, and was bullied/left out most of the time.
4. I have a very limited social life, and rarely mix with people my age.
5. I’m straightedge, which means I don’t drink alcohol or smoke as well as not using illegal drugs.
From this you can tell that I have absolutely no connection to illegal drugs. I was only told that they are dangerous and illegal, and that people who use them need help. Therefore, if you think this CMV comes across as harsh, misinformed or ignorant, that’s why. Hell, I’ve never even seen them, nor do I know anyone who does them.
Now, when it comes to using them, I just don’t get it. I really, honestly don’t see the point, and I don’t understand why they are accepted by so many people on Reddit. People talk about it like it’s normal, as if it’s expected, but it clearly isn’t. Drug users are frequently depicted as messed up people in films, the news, biographies of drug-addled musicians, and other forms of media.
First, they are illegal. Therefore, to obtain these drugs, you have to break the law. You have to visit a drug dealer. Drug dealers are criminals. In other words, you have to lower yourself to the level of a criminal, a person who commits crimes, to do that. Why do people not feel deeply uncomfortable and ashamed that they are supporting criminal activity? When I was educated about drugs in school, I just assumed that not using them is the obvious, popular, conclusion. They’re illegal, they’re bad for you, so obviously avoid them. Clearly, I’m in a minority as a very large portion of the Internet seems to have used illegal psychedelics and are completely unashamed. Any Reddit thread about drug experiences will receive thousands of comments from users. How can these people live with themselves that they are law-breakers? If I used illegal drugs, I'd be deeply ashamed of myself.
Now, let’s talk about psychedelics themselves as substances. So, they make you hallucinate. They make you see extremely weird visions and mess with your mind. Again, why would any self-respecting person do something so obviously wrong as that? Do these people not care about their sanity? Are they really that self-destructive? It sounds horrifyingly disturbing to use them, and the fact that people talk about it as if it’s normal, is, to me, a sign that there’s something very wrong with them. They are both using criminal substances, and the drug’s effects are bizarre, unnatural and nightmarish. Doesn’t that idea sound wrong to them? These people are criminals, and are corrupting their brains. That’s incredibly risky as the brain is fragile. Why are these people experimenting? What are they trying to achieve? Why are people okay with it and talk about it as if it’s a good thing, when hallucinating is clearly a sign of severe illness if you were to do it?
I’m sorry, but I feel that any person who uses psychedelics recreationally is in need of serious mental help. It’s not normal, and it shouldn’t be considered normal. How can it be? The fact that these psychedelics are illegal shows that there’s something wrong with them. What I don’t get is, what makes people start? Why would a person transition from not doing them, which is normal and healthy, to using them, which is irregular? Why would someone want to do something that’s looked down upon and throw away the benefits of being a law-abiding, clean citizen? Why do these people risk messing themselves up and getting themselves jailed or put in a hospital for psychiatric treatment, and talk about it like it’s not a serious issue, or even a crime? Whenever I read about people using psychedelic drugs, I can’t help but feel really freaked out and dismayed that so many people feel no sense of shame or regret. I wish I could understand it.
Clearly, there’s something I’m missing here. As of writing this, I just cannot accept people who do them, but I want to try to after I post this. I regard these people as extremely unstable people, but there has to something I’m not getting. I’ve never met a single person who uses them, and all through my life, I’ve seen dozens upon dozens of anti-drug posters and ads that warn against their use. Am I really meant to distrust these posters and ads? I’m pretty sure that if I were to go to a doctor and ask about using psychedelics, they’d warn against them. Are doctors wrong? What about all those anti-drug movies? Are they wrong?
Please change my view. Illegal psychedelic drug use makes absolutely no sense to me and I want to finally see why people become criminals to mess with their minds. Sorry for the long post.
| >First, they are illegal. Therefore, to obtain these drugs, you have to break the law. You have to visit a drug dealer. Drug dealers are criminals. In other words, you have to lower yourself to the level of a criminal, a person who commits crimes, to do that. Why do people not feel deeply uncomfortable and ashamed that they are supporting criminal activity?
I think your perception of drug dealers is a bit unrealistic, relative to the readerbase here. The average suburban reddit user's drug dealer is closer to a goofy loser who dropped out of college but still works full-time doing data entry by day, than to a ruthless criminal. Many of these dealers are people that buyers already knew socially, so it doesn't feel like reaching out to some criminal underbelly scum, it feels like hitting up your goofy "out-there" old friend.
>Why are these people experimenting? What are they trying to achieve? Why are people okay with it and talk about it as if it’s a good thing, when hallucinating is clearly a sign of severe illness if you were to do it?
They are trying to achieve a new perspective. Psychedelics, for many, are less about the hallucinations, and more about seeing the world through a different lens. To those who *do* trip for the hallucinations, the hallucinations are fun, and feel good; they are not scary. It instills a sense of childlike wonder. I absolutely agree that this can be over-used and abused, but for those who merely "experiment," it can be enlightening to trip. You temporarily engage the world from a mindset where everything looks and feels slightly different, which allows you to assess your life and the world around you with less regard for preconceived notions and closely-held beliefs. A thought as simple as "look at that slab of concrete with a yellow line painted on it. We call it a road. Isn't it funny that it's universal in our society that that yellow painted line conveys a command that we will all obey, even if it's 3am and no other cars are around." That might sound basic; no shit dude, we obey traffic signals. But when you're tripping everything is fresh and new, and you consider things in a different light. This sort of alternate perspective can apply to much deeper things too, and lead to greater epiphanies. I know at least one friend who finally accepted his own bisexuality after a trip.
>I’m sorry, but I feel that any person who uses psychedelics recreationally is in need of serious mental help. It’s not normal, and it shouldn’t be considered normal. How can it be? The fact that these psychedelics are illegal shows that there’s something wrong with them. What I don’t get is, what makes people start? Why would a person transition from not doing them, which is normal and healthy, to using them, which is irregular? Why would someone want to do something that’s looked down upon and throw away the benefits of being a law-abiding, clean citizen? Why do these people risk messing themselves up and getting themselves jailed or put in a hospital for psychiatric treatment, and talk about it like it’s not a serious issue, or even a crime? Whenever I read about people using psychedelic drugs, I can’t help but feel really freaked out and dismayed that so many people feel no sense of shame or regret. I wish I could understand it.
If someone uses them all the time to escape reality, I agree they need serious help. If someone uses them twice in their life to obtain that wider perspective I discussed, I think that's fine. You yourself mention pot now being accepted, though it's still illegal some places; I think that illustrates that just the fact of something being illegal doesn't define its utility absolutely. As for the risk, with proper dosage/supervision the risks can be controlled. It's the difference between eating a gram of sugar and 2 pounds of sugar, dosage matters.
I'm not saying these drugs are unequivocally good, nor are they for everyone, and they can be abused. But there are plenty of ways to obtain them, and reasons to do them, without devolving into a deranged criminal. | First, many drug users are self medicating for a health issue, usually mental health related, that the resources they have access to are inadequate to treat. Being on drugs makes them more able to keep on living. So yes, that group does need mental help. They can't get it.
As for the rest, people think it's fun. They think hallucinating is fun, and that being high is fun. People do illegal things for fun all the time. Do you think they all need mental help, or only the drug users?
As for the hallucinations and other effects, what's weird about pursuing a simulated sensory experience? People do it all the time, such as through virtual reality. Or just video games. | 5rgedc | CMV: Using illegal psychedelic drugs is unnatural, disturbing and shameful, and therefore, and I believe that anyone who does use them needs immediate mental help. | **EDIT: I apologise for not awarding Deltas to people. I honestly had no idea what Deltas even were. I never read the sidebar or even noticed the Delta symbol on people's posts. My view on this was partially changed and I thank everyone here for responding to this.**
First, let me be clear on one thing: I’m leaving cannabis out of this CMV. Cannabis is now very accepted as it is legal and decriminalized in many places, not to mention medically legal. As a drug, it’s no longer taboo, it’s just a healthier form of smoking that can’t kill you (but can still be bad for you). However, I still just cannot understand why any sane, normal, self-respecting human being, would take still-illegal and heavily taboo psychedelic drugs, like LSD, shrooms, MDMA, etc.
Also, a bit of background about myself, to make it clearer about why I currently hold these views:
1. I was raised to be law-abiding by law-abiding parents.
2. I did well in school, and wasn’t a rebellious teenager.
3. I was also an outcast in school, and was bullied/left out most of the time.
4. I have a very limited social life, and rarely mix with people my age.
5. I’m straightedge, which means I don’t drink alcohol or smoke as well as not using illegal drugs.
From this you can tell that I have absolutely no connection to illegal drugs. I was only told that they are dangerous and illegal, and that people who use them need help. Therefore, if you think this CMV comes across as harsh, misinformed or ignorant, that’s why. Hell, I’ve never even seen them, nor do I know anyone who does them.
Now, when it comes to using them, I just don’t get it. I really, honestly don’t see the point, and I don’t understand why they are accepted by so many people on Reddit. People talk about it like it’s normal, as if it’s expected, but it clearly isn’t. Drug users are frequently depicted as messed up people in films, the news, biographies of drug-addled musicians, and other forms of media.
First, they are illegal. Therefore, to obtain these drugs, you have to break the law. You have to visit a drug dealer. Drug dealers are criminals. In other words, you have to lower yourself to the level of a criminal, a person who commits crimes, to do that. Why do people not feel deeply uncomfortable and ashamed that they are supporting criminal activity? When I was educated about drugs in school, I just assumed that not using them is the obvious, popular, conclusion. They’re illegal, they’re bad for you, so obviously avoid them. Clearly, I’m in a minority as a very large portion of the Internet seems to have used illegal psychedelics and are completely unashamed. Any Reddit thread about drug experiences will receive thousands of comments from users. How can these people live with themselves that they are law-breakers? If I used illegal drugs, I'd be deeply ashamed of myself.
Now, let’s talk about psychedelics themselves as substances. So, they make you hallucinate. They make you see extremely weird visions and mess with your mind. Again, why would any self-respecting person do something so obviously wrong as that? Do these people not care about their sanity? Are they really that self-destructive? It sounds horrifyingly disturbing to use them, and the fact that people talk about it as if it’s normal, is, to me, a sign that there’s something very wrong with them. They are both using criminal substances, and the drug’s effects are bizarre, unnatural and nightmarish. Doesn’t that idea sound wrong to them? These people are criminals, and are corrupting their brains. That’s incredibly risky as the brain is fragile. Why are these people experimenting? What are they trying to achieve? Why are people okay with it and talk about it as if it’s a good thing, when hallucinating is clearly a sign of severe illness if you were to do it?
I’m sorry, but I feel that any person who uses psychedelics recreationally is in need of serious mental help. It’s not normal, and it shouldn’t be considered normal. How can it be? The fact that these psychedelics are illegal shows that there’s something wrong with them. What I don’t get is, what makes people start? Why would a person transition from not doing them, which is normal and healthy, to using them, which is irregular? Why would someone want to do something that’s looked down upon and throw away the benefits of being a law-abiding, clean citizen? Why do these people risk messing themselves up and getting themselves jailed or put in a hospital for psychiatric treatment, and talk about it like it’s not a serious issue, or even a crime? Whenever I read about people using psychedelic drugs, I can’t help but feel really freaked out and dismayed that so many people feel no sense of shame or regret. I wish I could understand it.
Clearly, there’s something I’m missing here. As of writing this, I just cannot accept people who do them, but I want to try to after I post this. I regard these people as extremely unstable people, but there has to something I’m not getting. I’ve never met a single person who uses them, and all through my life, I’ve seen dozens upon dozens of anti-drug posters and ads that warn against their use. Am I really meant to distrust these posters and ads? I’m pretty sure that if I were to go to a doctor and ask about using psychedelics, they’d warn against them. Are doctors wrong? What about all those anti-drug movies? Are they wrong?
Please change my view. Illegal psychedelic drug use makes absolutely no sense to me and I want to finally see why people become criminals to mess with their minds. Sorry for the long post.
| 1,485,966,077 | TT454 | dd7040u | dd6ztdp | 22 | 7 |
CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them.
Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me.
What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him.
Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me.
Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them.
I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop.
| Anytime I see someone talk about shyness or social anxiety, I have to link [here](http://socialanxietywebsite.com/social_skills_training.html#Spontaneous). That website has a lot of information I've found useful, and I think that section in particular would be helpful for you as well.
Here's the thing with hobbies. You might think that if you're interested in some ancient Chinese board game or 19th century history or quantum physics, that you can only talk about those sorts of things to people who are also interested in them. But that's not true! I know because those are all things I'm interested in, and I'll talk about them with people who don't know the first thing about them. The thing is, people's interests aren't set in stone. If you're talking to someone who's really passionate and knowledgeable about something, you'll probably find it engaging no matter what subject it is. It can be challenging to express things to people who don't know anything about it, but that's a skill that's worth developing. You may even find yourself understanding the concept better yourself!
You talk about not wanting to look "obsessed." The thing to understand is that everyone's obsessed with *something.* Some people are just obsessed with whether everyone else thinks they're cool and they go to great lengths to make sure they never look like they care about anything. Meanwhile there's some weird lame dude who cares way too much about his little garden, and the next thing you know he's discovered genetics. Interesting people care about stuff, cool people are boring.
Even if you end up talking somebody's ear off, there's a solid chance that they'll be relieved because it takes the pressure off themselves to find something to talk about. And if they know you to be a shy, quiet person and then you get on about a hobby and become a chatterbox (I do that sometimes), they'll probably feel happy because they got to see a hidden side of you, and it shows that you trust them enough to open up and be yourself. If you start worrying that you're dominating the conversation, you can always ask, or if you wanna be more subtle, go get a drink of or use the bathroom and that'll give them a chance to change the subject or talk to someone else.
Btw, if you have trouble dealing with anxious/depressing thoughts, [this page](http://socialanxietywebsite.com/cognitive_therapy.html#Rational) from the same website might help. | It sounds like the problem isn't that the person is "bothering people", it's that he keeps talking even when the other person isn't listening. It's clear that you care whether or not people are listening to you or want to hear what you have to say. If that's the case, you can pay attention while you're talking to see whether or not this happens. It's called attunement.
In this way, you can talk to anyone you want, and see whether or not it is bothering them. You can even ask whether your conversation is welcomed. If they seem uninterested, you can move on. Throughout the course of this, you will never have acted like the guy you bring up, who starts talking and never stops regardless of feedback. | 5rh49f | CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them. | Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me.
What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him.
Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me.
Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them.
I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop.
| 1,485,972,915 | grandoz039 | dd7t2mt | dd7go1u | 2 | 1 |
CMV: The left could never defeat the right with violence and it is stupid to even try
I see a lot of my leftist friends saying its time to rise up and start taking action against the Trump administration, that the left needs to get out there and start cracking skulls. This is a suicidally bad idea. Why? Guns.
Almost every person in America who owns guns and knows how to use them supports Trumps or would stand with Trump if a leftist revolt were to occur. I would be willing to bet that the average single Trump supporter owns more guns and has more experience using guns than 10 Antifas combined. This isn't even factoring in law enforcement and the military both of whom a staffed mostly by Trump supporters and conservatives.
*But we have numbers*
I'll tell you what, you get 20 of your friends and stand at the end of the road with baseball bats and knives, I'll stand at the other end with a fully loaded AK-47. Let's see how many of you actually reach me.
*The Hood has guns and would side with us/we have vets and law enforcement too*
Even if this were true, these people would have a much harder time training people who are generally anti-gun and anti-military to become people who could use these weapons effectively.
The conservatives on the other hand, would be training people who generally like guns, know how to use guns, and idolize the military.
*We are smarter and have hackers*
Unless you can hack into NORAD and launch nukes or hack the controls on a drone or a stealth bomber this will matter very little in the long run. Any damage you could do to the economy would be easily rectified.
*but ISIS/Vietnam/Al-Queda*
The Trump loyalists wouldn't be fighting foreign enemies in a foreign land. They would have detailed maps of every area they were going into and a wealth of knowledge about the area and the people there. Leftist rebels would not have the kind of home field advantage that made small terrorist cells such a threat. You're gonna hold up in an office building? Have armed guards at every entry point? Fine, looks like they'll just destroy the support pylons whose exact location they know using the sewer that they have detailed maps of because the army core of engineers designed it.
*We have something worth fighting for that pushes and unites us*
I would be willing to bet that the average Trump supporter, head full of tales of military glory and the promises of a peaceful afterlife with a loving god, would be much more willing to die for their cause then leftists who are really only united by a common enemy.
The modern day left is made up of strange bedfellows with radically different ideas that are only united in their enemy of conservative evangelicals. We're talking about groups like radical feminists, black nationalists, Muslims who support sharia law, and others I'm not even thinking of. I think it's reasonable to assume that these groups would inevitably splinter and begin betraying one another if the revolution looked like it would be victorious.
Also, when you talk about leftists you are talking about people who felt sympathy for the Boston Bomber. Which side of this conflict do you think is going to be better at dehumanizing their enemies and using whatever means necessary?
*but the Bolsheviks/Arab Spring*
Apples and Oranges. None of these people were fighting an army that could use a targeting satellite to send flying murderbots after you.
*You dont get political violence/its about sending a message, not winning*
sending what message? That Trump would be perfectly justified in instituting the kind of draconian policies you're afraid of to stop you? That moderates are right to fear you? That all of the anti-violence rhetoric we've been pushing for years was just bullshit?
Are you starting to see why "rising up" would never work? You will never defeat the right with violence because it is a game that they are much better at than you. All violent resistance would do is give them the excuse they need to crush you.
The left has to beat the right with ideas and evidence because it is the only thing the left can do better than the right. You will never out fanatic the right and you sure as hell will never out-violence them.
Before you question my motives understand that I'm not saying this because I support Trump. Trump is a dangerously unqualified fool. I'm saying this because I understand reality and logistics. I'm saying this because I don't want to see Trump gain more power and have the excuse he needs to kill his enemies.
>You're talking about a scenario that is totally unrealistic. Antifas are a relatively small group of people with little power, most people aren't that extreme. this kind of violent conflict is never going to happen
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/ | Maybe you should stay away from social media for a little while (this may include Reddit too).
I feel like both sides of the political spectrum just look insane thanks to the internet and the ability to post whatever thoughts you have regardless of how asinine. | 1. Your thread is clearly about general population fighting. That's not an "extremist political faction" by any means
2. It doesn't happen in the US
3. Again, there's no reasonable way to quantify it, it's an exercise of imagination, it can be whatever you want | 5rh8tz | CMV: The left could never defeat the right with violence and it is stupid to even try | I see a lot of my leftist friends saying its time to rise up and start taking action against the Trump administration, that the left needs to get out there and start cracking skulls. This is a suicidally bad idea. Why? Guns.
Almost every person in America who owns guns and knows how to use them supports Trumps or would stand with Trump if a leftist revolt were to occur. I would be willing to bet that the average single Trump supporter owns more guns and has more experience using guns than 10 Antifas combined. This isn't even factoring in law enforcement and the military both of whom a staffed mostly by Trump supporters and conservatives.
*But we have numbers*
I'll tell you what, you get 20 of your friends and stand at the end of the road with baseball bats and knives, I'll stand at the other end with a fully loaded AK-47. Let's see how many of you actually reach me.
*The Hood has guns and would side with us/we have vets and law enforcement too*
Even if this were true, these people would have a much harder time training people who are generally anti-gun and anti-military to become people who could use these weapons effectively.
The conservatives on the other hand, would be training people who generally like guns, know how to use guns, and idolize the military.
*We are smarter and have hackers*
Unless you can hack into NORAD and launch nukes or hack the controls on a drone or a stealth bomber this will matter very little in the long run. Any damage you could do to the economy would be easily rectified.
*but ISIS/Vietnam/Al-Queda*
The Trump loyalists wouldn't be fighting foreign enemies in a foreign land. They would have detailed maps of every area they were going into and a wealth of knowledge about the area and the people there. Leftist rebels would not have the kind of home field advantage that made small terrorist cells such a threat. You're gonna hold up in an office building? Have armed guards at every entry point? Fine, looks like they'll just destroy the support pylons whose exact location they know using the sewer that they have detailed maps of because the army core of engineers designed it.
*We have something worth fighting for that pushes and unites us*
I would be willing to bet that the average Trump supporter, head full of tales of military glory and the promises of a peaceful afterlife with a loving god, would be much more willing to die for their cause then leftists who are really only united by a common enemy.
The modern day left is made up of strange bedfellows with radically different ideas that are only united in their enemy of conservative evangelicals. We're talking about groups like radical feminists, black nationalists, Muslims who support sharia law, and others I'm not even thinking of. I think it's reasonable to assume that these groups would inevitably splinter and begin betraying one another if the revolution looked like it would be victorious.
Also, when you talk about leftists you are talking about people who felt sympathy for the Boston Bomber. Which side of this conflict do you think is going to be better at dehumanizing their enemies and using whatever means necessary?
*but the Bolsheviks/Arab Spring*
Apples and Oranges. None of these people were fighting an army that could use a targeting satellite to send flying murderbots after you.
*You dont get political violence/its about sending a message, not winning*
sending what message? That Trump would be perfectly justified in instituting the kind of draconian policies you're afraid of to stop you? That moderates are right to fear you? That all of the anti-violence rhetoric we've been pushing for years was just bullshit?
Are you starting to see why "rising up" would never work? You will never defeat the right with violence because it is a game that they are much better at than you. All violent resistance would do is give them the excuse they need to crush you.
The left has to beat the right with ideas and evidence because it is the only thing the left can do better than the right. You will never out fanatic the right and you sure as hell will never out-violence them.
Before you question my motives understand that I'm not saying this because I support Trump. Trump is a dangerously unqualified fool. I'm saying this because I understand reality and logistics. I'm saying this because I don't want to see Trump gain more power and have the excuse he needs to kill his enemies.
>You're talking about a scenario that is totally unrealistic. Antifas are a relatively small group of people with little power, most people aren't that extreme. this kind of violent conflict is never going to happen
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/ | 1,485,974,066 | comicgeek1128 | dd7c9on | dd783f7 | 13 | 7 |
CMV: Democrats should confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
First off, I am not going to make the ideological case for Mr. Gorsuch. He is by most experts' consideration as conservative, if not more conservative than Scalia. However, I do not think this man is naive enough to strike down the individual direct contribution limit of campaign finance - I think he is rational enough to understand what de facto bribery is and its deleterious effect on silencing the voice of the poor. I understand women, lgbt, strict 4th Amendment people, and evangelicals have different litmus tests that they are justified standing up for, but I think the onus is upon us to make the Constitution unambiguous, rather than lambast someone for doing what they honestly believe is upholding the Constitution with a lifetime of judicial expertise.
1. Moral. There is no moral high ground in responding to Republicans' childishness and irresponsible governance in kind. This is clear in theology and in law. Citizens are punished for responding to theft with theft, violence with violence, libel with libel, and eyes with eyes. In theology, Jesus, MLK, and Gandhi all believed only pleasure was to be achieved in retribution in kind, not moral satisfaction.
2. Job description. Part of our lawmakers' jobs are to make government run effectively, and make sure judicial appointments are up to the task and ethically faithful. Gorsuch seems to fulfill the latter, which thus makes Democrats responsibility to do the former. While Republicans shirked this duty, it is not D Congressmen's job to punish them for it, it is the voters' job.
3. Political gains. Democrats have the opportunity to make McConnell and Ryan jump through hoops to get this guy confirmed. They can ask McConnell to publically retract his comments about the justification for filibustering a qualified judicial nominee during the Obama administration. Democrats have the opportunity to cast the Republicans alone as hypocrites for a generation. I think Dem Congressmen and voter anger is clouding the opportunity this nomination presents.
4. Trump is a madman. Dems should make the determination if they truly want to filibuster a nominee for four years, when Republicans did it for only one. At this point, we should realize that nothing is beneath Donald Trump. The number of men appointed by Trump who seem to take the obligations of their job seriously (judging by their embracing the scientific method or not) can be counted on one hand. Gorsuch seems to be one of those. It would show internal inconsistency to oppose Sessions, Pruitt, Price, Devos because of ethical and partisan characteristics which Gorsuch does not seem to have. | [Trump's Supreme Court pick founded and led club called 'Fascism Forever' at his elite all-boys Washington prep school](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html) | You've evaded a very important discussion on the responsibilities of those elected. I'd have to agree with their job responsibilities as representing the desires of their constituents. | 5rhcov | CMV: Democrats should confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. | First off, I am not going to make the ideological case for Mr. Gorsuch. He is by most experts' consideration as conservative, if not more conservative than Scalia. However, I do not think this man is naive enough to strike down the individual direct contribution limit of campaign finance - I think he is rational enough to understand what de facto bribery is and its deleterious effect on silencing the voice of the poor. I understand women, lgbt, strict 4th Amendment people, and evangelicals have different litmus tests that they are justified standing up for, but I think the onus is upon us to make the Constitution unambiguous, rather than lambast someone for doing what they honestly believe is upholding the Constitution with a lifetime of judicial expertise.
1. Moral. There is no moral high ground in responding to Republicans' childishness and irresponsible governance in kind. This is clear in theology and in law. Citizens are punished for responding to theft with theft, violence with violence, libel with libel, and eyes with eyes. In theology, Jesus, MLK, and Gandhi all believed only pleasure was to be achieved in retribution in kind, not moral satisfaction.
2. Job description. Part of our lawmakers' jobs are to make government run effectively, and make sure judicial appointments are up to the task and ethically faithful. Gorsuch seems to fulfill the latter, which thus makes Democrats responsibility to do the former. While Republicans shirked this duty, it is not D Congressmen's job to punish them for it, it is the voters' job.
3. Political gains. Democrats have the opportunity to make McConnell and Ryan jump through hoops to get this guy confirmed. They can ask McConnell to publically retract his comments about the justification for filibustering a qualified judicial nominee during the Obama administration. Democrats have the opportunity to cast the Republicans alone as hypocrites for a generation. I think Dem Congressmen and voter anger is clouding the opportunity this nomination presents.
4. Trump is a madman. Dems should make the determination if they truly want to filibuster a nominee for four years, when Republicans did it for only one. At this point, we should realize that nothing is beneath Donald Trump. The number of men appointed by Trump who seem to take the obligations of their job seriously (judging by their embracing the scientific method or not) can be counted on one hand. Gorsuch seems to be one of those. It would show internal inconsistency to oppose Sessions, Pruitt, Price, Devos because of ethical and partisan characteristics which Gorsuch does not seem to have. | 1,485,975,056 | TezzMuffins | dd8cue9 | dd8awtq | 2 | 1 |
CMV: The money I spend on insurance would be better spent on a savings account.
Literally all insurance is just bought as risk avoidance (or because it's legally required in the case of car insurance). You buy health insurance in case you encounter a terrible health complication, you buy life insurance in case you die, all of these can help to make a bad and very costly situation much easier.
The point of my argument though is that insurance costs would be better spent going into a savings account in case something happens. Not only does this reduce the stress of paying 3 different insurance bills, but you're also guaranteed to have the money you put in should your roof collapse due to rot instead of "act of god" or whatever other niche situations are actually covered.
To elaborate on my point a bit, most people get less out of insurance than they put in, just by definition. Select few people get lucky enough (or unlucky depending on your perspective) to actually profit from their insurance policies. But I'm not interested in getting lucky, I'm interested in financially responsible and intelligent decisions.
In addition, a savings account is versatile in its use and the money I spend on insurance would fairly quickly create a substantial sum in the account, and regardless of what problems arise, it can be used for anything, rather than only the thing it's set aside for.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to just cancel all of my insurance right now, I would need a substantial amount in my savings account right now to feel comfortable doing so. But if I had a large sum in my bank account, it would be a financially sound decision.
To change my opinion, anecdotes will be entirely ineffective. If there was a reliable statistic showing that most insurance pays out positively for the majority of people, I could be swayed. Otherwise, I'm not sure what could convince me.
Thanks in advance for any answers :D
Edit:
/u/wekulm brought up the excellent point that there's a point where your savings would be better spent on earning more money via investment in non-liquid assets rather than as an emergency fund, as they would earn more than would be spent on insurance premiums. While insurance companies are still troublesome to deal with, it makes avoiding them altogether a less appealing option, and so I've changed my opinion. | No one profits from insurance because indemnity. Shouldn't, that is
You pretty much put the argument right there at the end of your post, you don't have enough savings. If insurance were a net positive for policyholders, there would be no insurance.
Even if you found yourself with enough savings, you'd likely still choose to pay the price of the transfer of risk, because you'd find that money you have in savings could be making you more money, properly invested, than the cost of your premiums.
There's no free lunch and certainly not in insurance. | Insurance gives you access to more money sooner than saving in the event of an emergency. If I don't get insurance on my house and save the money instead I wouldn't necessarily be able to pay for a large amount of damage if it took place soon after I have bought the house.
It also depends on how much money you make and the price of the things you want to insure. If you can afford to lose what you are thinking of insuring you probably shouldn't insure it.
| 5rhzp2 | CMV: The money I spend on insurance would be better spent on a savings account. | Literally all insurance is just bought as risk avoidance (or because it's legally required in the case of car insurance). You buy health insurance in case you encounter a terrible health complication, you buy life insurance in case you die, all of these can help to make a bad and very costly situation much easier.
The point of my argument though is that insurance costs would be better spent going into a savings account in case something happens. Not only does this reduce the stress of paying 3 different insurance bills, but you're also guaranteed to have the money you put in should your roof collapse due to rot instead of "act of god" or whatever other niche situations are actually covered.
To elaborate on my point a bit, most people get less out of insurance than they put in, just by definition. Select few people get lucky enough (or unlucky depending on your perspective) to actually profit from their insurance policies. But I'm not interested in getting lucky, I'm interested in financially responsible and intelligent decisions.
In addition, a savings account is versatile in its use and the money I spend on insurance would fairly quickly create a substantial sum in the account, and regardless of what problems arise, it can be used for anything, rather than only the thing it's set aside for.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to just cancel all of my insurance right now, I would need a substantial amount in my savings account right now to feel comfortable doing so. But if I had a large sum in my bank account, it would be a financially sound decision.
To change my opinion, anecdotes will be entirely ineffective. If there was a reliable statistic showing that most insurance pays out positively for the majority of people, I could be swayed. Otherwise, I'm not sure what could convince me.
Thanks in advance for any answers :D
Edit:
/u/wekulm brought up the excellent point that there's a point where your savings would be better spent on earning more money via investment in non-liquid assets rather than as an emergency fund, as they would earn more than would be spent on insurance premiums. While insurance companies are still troublesome to deal with, it makes avoiding them altogether a less appealing option, and so I've changed my opinion. | 1,485,981,003 | Calijor | dd7frvo | dd7dsrl | 3 | 1 |
CMV: The context of a pregnancy, however abhorrent (e.g. rape), does not affect the morality of abortion
First, a clarification:
I am undecided as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I am able to rationalise both sides of the debate and understand the perspectives that they approach from, but both sides have thus far failed to convince me. I hope that I will be able to form a conclusive view on the issue, and this is one step towards that.
One argument that is very prevalent on the pro-choice side of the debate is in regards to how the situation of the woman affects the extent to which abortion is morally justifiable. They may argue, for instance, that as a woman who has been raped has made no decision to risk initiating a pregnancy they should immediately have access to an abortion. This is seen as justifiable because the motivations of the woman are pure, and she is an innocent party; she is not, for example, rejecting the intrinsic value of an embryo/fetus by treating abortion as a method of contraception. A raped woman is simply choosing to leave a situation (pregnancy) that she has not, in any conceivable way, consented to; she has the *right* to do this.
But how can this possibly change the morality of the **act** of abortion? On one operating table there is a woman who has been raped, and on another there is an apathetic woman who has regular unprotected sex. They both undergo the same procedure - on both operating tables the immediate consequences are *exactly* the same - so how can one of these procedures be considered significantly more moral than the other? The thought that the righteousness of an abortion should be judged on personal context, and not just the development of the fetus, seems nonsensical to me; the **act** of terminating a pregnancy must either be deemed moral or immoral by a society, regardless of personal circumstance.
Change my view! I've flip-flopped about abortion many times before.
EDIT: I believe that an abortion that saves the mother is morally justifiable, and this is the only contextual clarification that I think needs to exist. That's because an abortion that saves the mother's life and an abortion in which the mother will be healthy regardless are different in a quantifiable, measurable way.
EDIT2: A situation where the mother's mental deterioration is likely to cause suicide, if she continues with the pregnancy, would also justify abortion for the same reasons as in the original edit.
| Consider the following two scenarios:
1. A driver maliciously runs over someone they hate, an ex perhaps, killing them.
2. A driver loses control of their car striking a pedestrian, killing them.
Both of these situations in the abstract are very similar. A person behind the wheel of a car kills a person. However, that does not mean we treat these cases the same when they go to court. While the first driver will almost certainly go to jail, the second one may not. Despite being in essentially the same action, we deprive one person of their freedom and the other one we do not.
The reason is obvious: The first driver made a conscious choice to do something, and is therefore must be held responsible for their choice. The second person did not decide to kill a person. Perhaps they were trying to swerve to miss something else, or the pedestrian was wearing black and jaywalking in the middle of the night, or the driver suffered a sudden seizure - there are all kinds of situations where the driver may have done little or nothing wrong. If this is the case, they are a victim of circumstance, and so we don't hold them accountable for the situation they were a part of.
Many people believe that fetuses are alive, and that by having sex you are waiving your right to not be pregnant. To them, when you choose to take a risky action it's not permissible to commit murder to get out of dealing with the consequences of that action. However, if you are raped, that's not a situation you chose to be in. You never waived your right to your body. You didn't choose this situation, so your freedom isn't deprived. Yes, a life is still ended, but it wasn't your responsibility to give birth to that child in the first place.
Note that I don't agree with that view, but if you accept the premises I gave then the logic makes sense. | > But how can this possibly change the morality of the act of abortion? On one operating table there is a woman who has been raped, and on another there is an apathetic woman who has regular unprotected sex. They both undergo the same procedure - on both operating tables the immediate consequences are exactly the same - so how can one of these procedures be considered significantly more moral than the other?
The way I read your OP, you are claiming the surgical act of an abortion is identical regardless of what lead there. So I’m going to tell you another story of two women who have the same identical procedure with identical consequences. You can tell me if they are morally different:
Woman A gets pregnant, finds out she is pregnant at 8 weeks, and decides to abort, having a D&C at 9 weeks.
Woman B gets pregnant, finds out she is pregnant at 6 weeks, finds out at 8 weeks that the fetus is not growing and she has miscarried. She has a D&C at 9 weeks to remove the tissue.
They’ve both gone to the same procedure, same operating tables, same immediate consequences (removing tissue from the uterus, probably some pain, bleeding, and heavy emotions). Are their two actions identical? Or were they morally different because of context?
| 5ri7y5 | CMV: The context of a pregnancy, however abhorrent (e.g. rape), does not affect the morality of abortion | First, a clarification:
I am undecided as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I am able to rationalise both sides of the debate and understand the perspectives that they approach from, but both sides have thus far failed to convince me. I hope that I will be able to form a conclusive view on the issue, and this is one step towards that.
One argument that is very prevalent on the pro-choice side of the debate is in regards to how the situation of the woman affects the extent to which abortion is morally justifiable. They may argue, for instance, that as a woman who has been raped has made no decision to risk initiating a pregnancy they should immediately have access to an abortion. This is seen as justifiable because the motivations of the woman are pure, and she is an innocent party; she is not, for example, rejecting the intrinsic value of an embryo/fetus by treating abortion as a method of contraception. A raped woman is simply choosing to leave a situation (pregnancy) that she has not, in any conceivable way, consented to; she has the *right* to do this.
But how can this possibly change the morality of the **act** of abortion? On one operating table there is a woman who has been raped, and on another there is an apathetic woman who has regular unprotected sex. They both undergo the same procedure - on both operating tables the immediate consequences are *exactly* the same - so how can one of these procedures be considered significantly more moral than the other? The thought that the righteousness of an abortion should be judged on personal context, and not just the development of the fetus, seems nonsensical to me; the **act** of terminating a pregnancy must either be deemed moral or immoral by a society, regardless of personal circumstance.
Change my view! I've flip-flopped about abortion many times before.
EDIT: I believe that an abortion that saves the mother is morally justifiable, and this is the only contextual clarification that I think needs to exist. That's because an abortion that saves the mother's life and an abortion in which the mother will be healthy regardless are different in a quantifiable, measurable way.
EDIT2: A situation where the mother's mental deterioration is likely to cause suicide, if she continues with the pregnancy, would also justify abortion for the same reasons as in the original edit.
| 1,485,983,147 | awolz | dd7g6m4 | dd7g50u | 36 | 4 |
CMV: The GOP/Republicans are the party of Reagan, not Lincoln
One of the most common slogans for the Republican party is that they are the Party of Lincoln.
That they were created by Lincoln and represent his ideals, except that isn't necessarily true.
Lincoln had three main ideas
1 - He wanted to keep the Union united. So much so that critics will remind people that if it had required slavery to still exist, he wouldn't have pushed for abolition.
2 - While he did support the use of religious morals as basis for some laws, he didn't want a religious state.
3 - That people should be entitled to the fruits of their labour and that laws shouldn't be made that restrict the freedoms of people.
Whereas Reagan had these three main ideas
1 - That States Rights are important and more decisions should be left up to each state instead of national policy.
2 - Christianity is a good basis for law
3 - That the rich shouldn't be taxed in order to ensure lower class prosperitym, and that a lack of taxation would lead to money trickling down.
Looking at the GOP of today;
* They rarely want national policy and prefer individual states to make decisions for themselves, thereby weakening the unity of the union
* Christianity is a good basis for law, going so far as to outlaw things based on the bible (looking at you gay marriage)
* That taxation should be minimal (the one thing that both groups believe in)
Because of this I think that the GOP is being disingenuous by marketing themselves as the Party of Lincoln and would more accurately be the Party of Reagan. | Reagan: Tear down this wall! GOP 2017: Put up this wall!
Reagan: Passed immigration reform. GOP 2017: They're taken arr jebs!
Reagan: "The Great Communicator." GOP 2017: "I never said that thing I said yesterday."
Reagan: Made you feel proud to be an American. GOP 2017: Make you feel ashamed to be an American.
Reagan: Worked with congressional Democrats. GOP 2017: So opposed to working with Democrats they'll even block a bill they sponsored if Democrats like it.
Reagan: Secretly broke the law to further American interests against Russia. GOP 2017: Secretly broke the law to further Russian interests against the US.
This is not the party of Reagan. Not by a country mile. | Not anymore. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in 1986. He was incredibly pro-free trade, and was morally opposed to Trump style protectionism. The Republicans today are the party of Trump, and whatever happens to benefit wealthy white conservative Christians in the short term.
There's no higher principles at play here. For example, Libertarians are opposed to executive orders on principle. On the other hand, Republicans were opposed to them when Obama made them, but cheer when Trump does the same thing. [Mitch McConnell has completely flipped on the issue of Supreme Court nominations.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H6rjextSrMJ) Meanwhile, [Mike Pence and Paul Ryan have reversed their positions on a Muslim Ban.](http://www.complex.com/life/2017/01/mike-pence-paul-ryan-oppose-muslim-ban-in-earlier-tweets) The only rule here is that whatever course of action they take is in their base's best interests in the short term. They flip the moment it's politically expedient to do so. | 5rim24 | CMV: The GOP/Republicans are the party of Reagan, not Lincoln | One of the most common slogans for the Republican party is that they are the Party of Lincoln.
That they were created by Lincoln and represent his ideals, except that isn't necessarily true.
Lincoln had three main ideas
1 - He wanted to keep the Union united. So much so that critics will remind people that if it had required slavery to still exist, he wouldn't have pushed for abolition.
2 - While he did support the use of religious morals as basis for some laws, he didn't want a religious state.
3 - That people should be entitled to the fruits of their labour and that laws shouldn't be made that restrict the freedoms of people.
Whereas Reagan had these three main ideas
1 - That States Rights are important and more decisions should be left up to each state instead of national policy.
2 - Christianity is a good basis for law
3 - That the rich shouldn't be taxed in order to ensure lower class prosperitym, and that a lack of taxation would lead to money trickling down.
Looking at the GOP of today;
* They rarely want national policy and prefer individual states to make decisions for themselves, thereby weakening the unity of the union
* Christianity is a good basis for law, going so far as to outlaw things based on the bible (looking at you gay marriage)
* That taxation should be minimal (the one thing that both groups believe in)
Because of this I think that the GOP is being disingenuous by marketing themselves as the Party of Lincoln and would more accurately be the Party of Reagan. | 1,485,986,902 | ACrusaderA | dd7t4ym | dd7nlwk | 51 | 29 |
CMV: Immigrants are not welcome anymore in USA
This is not only about Trump's policies. H1-B visa reform is not due to Trump only. It was planned before.
1) H1-B visa will be regulated and rumor says it will be given to the immigrants with top salaries. This will make the hiring process like an auction. Scientists can never make it through, since their salaries cannot compete with the companies.
2) This will force companies to either move overseas or hire fewer immigrants. USA is quite open to immigration right now since all generations have some contact with immigrants. However if immigration is cut in the future, next generations in USA will be less open to immigration.
3) Even discussing (rumoring) something like this is sending a message to everyone that "you are not welcome here".
I am an immigrant in USA. I worked my butt off to come here, worked my butt off to finish PhD in a top school, worked hard to network here and adapt the culture here, became a good scientist, then brought my wife and she is about to finish an MBA. We made our every plan to stay here. Our plan is (was) to settle here and not turn back to the country we came from, which is a shithole right now. It is hard, yes, however we also worked hard. We were about to apply to H1 visa and obtain a greencard afterwards. Now all for nothing it seems. I want to thank all US friends who defended this, however if legislation passes, there is not much we can do. We feel very bad right now, because if I turn back (to Turkey) probably I will not be able to find a job or even be jailed due to my political positions. Which means I have just wasted my years in USA. | Immigrants are absolutely still welcome in the US.
Here's the issue with the H1B bill:
You are the textbook example of how the process is supposed to work. Unfortunately, its not what actually happens a lot of the time.
If you google ["h1b abuse"](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=h1b+abuse), you see examples and stories from the entire spectrum of media outlets documenting cases where the process was abused to import cheap labor.
I'll pull an example from [CIO](http://www.cio.com/article/2946119/careers-staffing/5-shocking-examples-of-h-1b-visa-program-abuse.html#slide2).
>Beginning in August 2014, Southern California Edison began replacing approximately 400 IT employees with a smaller, lower-paid workforce brought in from overseas through the H-1B program, according to Computerworld's Patrick Thibodeau, who has reported extensively on this issue. The original employees, who were forced to train their replacements as well as sign nondisclosure agreements and gag orders, were making an average of about $110,000 a year. The replacements were brought to Southern California Edison by outsourcing firms Infosys and Tata, and were paid an average of between $65,000 and $75,000, according to depositions in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spurred by complaints about the practice.
The objective is not to limit the visa recipients to only the most elite of potential immigrant workers, but to prevent abuses like the one described above where American workers are harmed and immigrant workers are abused and taken advantage of.
There are multiple pieces of legislation in the works (at least three have been submitted) to address H1B issues, but the primary goal is to prevent abuse, not prevent immigration. | What do you mean by "welcome"?
Do you mean that immigrants are no longer welcome in the sense that it will soon be logistically much more difficult for them to come here, or in the sense that the American people don't want immigrants here? | 5rj5re | CMV: Immigrants are not welcome anymore in USA | This is not only about Trump's policies. H1-B visa reform is not due to Trump only. It was planned before.
1) H1-B visa will be regulated and rumor says it will be given to the immigrants with top salaries. This will make the hiring process like an auction. Scientists can never make it through, since their salaries cannot compete with the companies.
2) This will force companies to either move overseas or hire fewer immigrants. USA is quite open to immigration right now since all generations have some contact with immigrants. However if immigration is cut in the future, next generations in USA will be less open to immigration.
3) Even discussing (rumoring) something like this is sending a message to everyone that "you are not welcome here".
I am an immigrant in USA. I worked my butt off to come here, worked my butt off to finish PhD in a top school, worked hard to network here and adapt the culture here, became a good scientist, then brought my wife and she is about to finish an MBA. We made our every plan to stay here. Our plan is (was) to settle here and not turn back to the country we came from, which is a shithole right now. It is hard, yes, however we also worked hard. We were about to apply to H1 visa and obtain a greencard afterwards. Now all for nothing it seems. I want to thank all US friends who defended this, however if legislation passes, there is not much we can do. We feel very bad right now, because if I turn back (to Turkey) probably I will not be able to find a job or even be jailed due to my political positions. Which means I have just wasted my years in USA. | 1,485,992,386 | beardsolidarity | dd7oash | dd7nzo6 | 5 | 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.