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: Society and culture needs to teach ALL children and adults equally -- regardless of gender -- that violence against anyone is wrong
This view consists of two points. Change either or both for a delta: point 1 is that society stigmatizes violence against females (esp. by males) far more than it stigmatizes violence against males (esp. by females). Point 2 is that society needs to change this. Point 1 is my premise that this exists, point 2 is my argument that it is wrong for it to exist.
Let me explain point 1: there is a general social stigma directed towards male-on-female violence. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing -- but what is a bad thing is the fact that this stigma is nowhere near as strongly as for the reverse scenario. For instance: in schools, I can directly recall that boys bullied by other boys are ordered to shake hands and make up after the bully is dealt with, but a boy bullies a girl he's got hell coming his way. Girls bullying boys was viewed as childish and just a quick counsel session. Violence between two students of the same gender -- esp. if it were between girls -- would be treated far more forgivingly.
And this is reflected in the adult world today. Men are taught to deal with DV and believe that they are wusses if they have a problem with it. The phrase "Hit a woman"/"Hit a girl" has more stigma than "hit another man" or "hit your boyfriend". There's the phrases "men do not hit women" and "don't put your hands on a women" but I've never heard "women do not hit men" or "don't put your hands on your boyfriend". [And you know you can relate to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4w63jp/a_guy_can_decline_an_invitation_by_saying_his/)
Even though murder affects men far more than it does women. And from what I remember in school, the same is true for bullying.
This is even reflected (like most societal values) in fiction: men/boys are regularly slapped around by women/girls and it's portrayed as funny, comedic and deserved, while men who do something like grab a wrist and oh god they're satan. DV against women is something fiction has to dance around to avoid being too dark (to keep it family friendly); but DV against men is something *so normalized* that it becomes comedy. Women slapping boyfriend for being a cheater? LOL, righteous! That's portrayed as if it's a good and deserved thing. But men slapping around girlfriend for being a cheater? Bastard who drover her away!
Back to society: domestic violence posters can be found to focus only on women. Take [this for instance](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5evyxb/a_poster_against_domestic_abuse_that_targets_the/). DV posters often talk about women. Just google "domestic violence poster" into Google Images or do a youtube search for "domestic violence PSA".
That's my explanation for point 1; the idea this stuff *does* exist.
Now let me explain point 2, the idea that it shouldn't exist. We need to treat society to condemn all violence, and not factor the attacker/attacked's gender into account. Obviously it is sexism and misandry. We cannot normalize female-on-male violence. That's horrific. Also, fun fact: [did you know that lesbians suffer more domestic violence than straight women according to some surveys?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships#Prevalence) Don't those women matter to?
There is very little support for boys and men suffering from abuse. But with women, there's huge concern for stopping it. [I would be seething if my son were to be put through this while my daughter was not.](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html) Men are taught not to hit women, but women are not told "not to hit men". My argument is this: **we need to stop teaching boys not to hit girls. Stop teaching men not to hit women. Start teaching all children that all violence, against anyone (outside of self-defense) is wrong.** When you make a PSA about violence, show both a woman abusing a man and a man abusing a woman (or do not focus on a single gender at all). There's concern over men growing up to hit women because they witness their fathers hitting their mothers; I'm also concerned about girls witnessing their mothers mistreat their fathers growing up to think that is normal as well.
Don't teach boys any more than you teach girls. Stigmatize violence between men, between women, male-to-female, female-to-male. Bottom line: **THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKED, AND THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKER, IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY VIOLENT SITUATION!** All violence is to be judged in it's own case based on severity and provocation, the gender of the perp/victim is irrelevant.
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine if I went to a school and forced every black student to go to a workshop telling them not to steal. And then I, on top of this, told them not to steal *from white people*. You get that that would be viewed as offensive and patronizing and normalizing white crime right? Or if I made a PSA that depicted a 5-year old white child crying about her mother, because she, a white woman (visually depicted as white in the PSA), was raped and killed by a black man (again, visually depicted as a crazed black man in the PSA), and the PSA ended with the tagline "end violence against white women by African-Americans". You would be enraged, would you not?
So that's my view. Society needs to remove all gender-related elements from it's stigmatization, and efforts to combat, violence.
To save some time, let me just address the most common thing I hear when this stuff is discussed: the **men are biologically stronger and larger than women** argument. True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused. Second of all, women can use blunt objects and weapons to abuse men/boys -- the same way that man used weaponry to dominate bears despite being both slower and smaller than them.
So that's my view.
|
I agree, women should also be told not to hit men or other women. But it's much more important that we stress the need for men not to hit women, and for reasons you seem to understand:
>True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused.
I don't think anyone argues that it's a moral excuse for women to hit men. It creates a practical concern about who's more dangerous in a violent situation. Men are far more likely to commit murder and manslaughter because of testosterone. It makes most of us bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than most women, and it means most women are relatively fragile compared to most of us. My girlfriend might loosen my tooth if she caught me off guard, I might kill her if I swung for the fences. If she came after me with a bat I could probably take it from her with only a bruise or two; but I most likely would kill or at least permanently injure her. I have to be *more* cognizant because the consequences of my violence are so much greater than hers.
There's a reason "don't hit girls" has been a western social convention for so long: it has practical value that a more gender neutral message doesn't.
|
Don't we already teach our children not to be violent? It's frowned upon for men to hit men, men to hit women, women to hit men, and for women to hit women. You are correct in your assessment that male on female violence is more stigmatized than other forms of violence, but there are logical reasons for this. First, there is as you mentioned, a dramatic difference between the upper body strength between men and women. [Almost all men are stronger than almost all women] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683) This is a pretty big factor when it comes to portrayals of violence in media. When it comes to portraying violence between children, gender isn't really an issue. Brothers and sisters fighting are pretty common in portrayals of child on child violence, and these scenes are often played for laughs. So clearly, strength differences are an issue. Let's take your romantic comedy example for a moment. When a woman slaps a man with full force, it can be played for laughs. This is because as stated earlier men are much stronger than women. So if a woman slaps a man at full force, it won't hurt that much, he is only going to be stunned for a bit. The damage is less than if he had slipped on a banana peel. If we do this same moment, but with the genders reversed, she's getting knocked to the floor. The result isn't funny anymore and the protagonist doesn't look good in the eyes of the audience. It's also reminiscent of domestic violence. While male victims of domestic violence should not be ignored or silenced by any means, the fact still remains that when it comes to physical abuse in a domestic partnership, female victims often have it worse. [Men are statistically more likely to perpetrate severe physical abuse. On top of that, men often abuse their partners by beating them and strangling them while when women physically abuse their partners it's through kicking, punching, and throwing objects.] (http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/134467/1/Content.pdf) While obviously neither action is acceptable, the impact of these acts of violence on different genders is dramatic. [70% of female victims of domestic violence report being very frightened of their intimate partners while 85% of male victims have no fear of their intimate partners at all.] (http://people.cas.sc.edu/swansc/1.swan_web_articles/2012_CaldwellSwan_GenderDiffIPVOutcomes.pdf)
|
5l86jl
|
CMV: Society and culture needs to teach ALL children and adults equally -- regardless of gender -- that violence against anyone is wrong
|
This view consists of two points. Change either or both for a delta: point 1 is that society stigmatizes violence against females (esp. by males) far more than it stigmatizes violence against males (esp. by females). Point 2 is that society needs to change this. Point 1 is my premise that this exists, point 2 is my argument that it is wrong for it to exist.
Let me explain point 1: there is a general social stigma directed towards male-on-female violence. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing -- but what is a bad thing is the fact that this stigma is nowhere near as strongly as for the reverse scenario. For instance: in schools, I can directly recall that boys bullied by other boys are ordered to shake hands and make up after the bully is dealt with, but a boy bullies a girl he's got hell coming his way. Girls bullying boys was viewed as childish and just a quick counsel session. Violence between two students of the same gender -- esp. if it were between girls -- would be treated far more forgivingly.
And this is reflected in the adult world today. Men are taught to deal with DV and believe that they are wusses if they have a problem with it. The phrase "Hit a woman"/"Hit a girl" has more stigma than "hit another man" or "hit your boyfriend". There's the phrases "men do not hit women" and "don't put your hands on a women" but I've never heard "women do not hit men" or "don't put your hands on your boyfriend". [And you know you can relate to this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4w63jp/a_guy_can_decline_an_invitation_by_saying_his/)
Even though murder affects men far more than it does women. And from what I remember in school, the same is true for bullying.
This is even reflected (like most societal values) in fiction: men/boys are regularly slapped around by women/girls and it's portrayed as funny, comedic and deserved, while men who do something like grab a wrist and oh god they're satan. DV against women is something fiction has to dance around to avoid being too dark (to keep it family friendly); but DV against men is something *so normalized* that it becomes comedy. Women slapping boyfriend for being a cheater? LOL, righteous! That's portrayed as if it's a good and deserved thing. But men slapping around girlfriend for being a cheater? Bastard who drover her away!
Back to society: domestic violence posters can be found to focus only on women. Take [this for instance](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5evyxb/a_poster_against_domestic_abuse_that_targets_the/). DV posters often talk about women. Just google "domestic violence poster" into Google Images or do a youtube search for "domestic violence PSA".
That's my explanation for point 1; the idea this stuff *does* exist.
Now let me explain point 2, the idea that it shouldn't exist. We need to treat society to condemn all violence, and not factor the attacker/attacked's gender into account. Obviously it is sexism and misandry. We cannot normalize female-on-male violence. That's horrific. Also, fun fact: [did you know that lesbians suffer more domestic violence than straight women according to some surveys?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships#Prevalence) Don't those women matter to?
There is very little support for boys and men suffering from abuse. But with women, there's huge concern for stopping it. [I would be seething if my son were to be put through this while my daughter was not.](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html) Men are taught not to hit women, but women are not told "not to hit men". My argument is this: **we need to stop teaching boys not to hit girls. Stop teaching men not to hit women. Start teaching all children that all violence, against anyone (outside of self-defense) is wrong.** When you make a PSA about violence, show both a woman abusing a man and a man abusing a woman (or do not focus on a single gender at all). There's concern over men growing up to hit women because they witness their fathers hitting their mothers; I'm also concerned about girls witnessing their mothers mistreat their fathers growing up to think that is normal as well.
Don't teach boys any more than you teach girls. Stigmatize violence between men, between women, male-to-female, female-to-male. Bottom line: **THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKED, AND THE GENDER OF THE ATTACKER, IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY VIOLENT SITUATION!** All violence is to be judged in it's own case based on severity and provocation, the gender of the perp/victim is irrelevant.
Let me give you an analogy. Imagine if I went to a school and forced every black student to go to a workshop telling them not to steal. And then I, on top of this, told them not to steal *from white people*. You get that that would be viewed as offensive and patronizing and normalizing white crime right? Or if I made a PSA that depicted a 5-year old white child crying about her mother, because she, a white woman (visually depicted as white in the PSA), was raped and killed by a black man (again, visually depicted as a crazed black man in the PSA), and the PSA ended with the tagline "end violence against white women by African-Americans". You would be enraged, would you not?
So that's my view. Society needs to remove all gender-related elements from it's stigmatization, and efforts to combat, violence.
To save some time, let me just address the most common thing I hear when this stuff is discussed: the **men are biologically stronger and larger than women** argument. True yes, men are stronger than women. But first of all, this is not a moral excuse for violent women -- in fact, it creates a mindset that their shorter stature makes it okay for them to be violent, and creates another toxic mindset in the men feeling that their larger stature gives them no right to get angry when they are abused. Second of all, women can use blunt objects and weapons to abuse men/boys -- the same way that man used weaponry to dominate bears despite being both slower and smaller than them.
So that's my view.
| 1,483,162,169
|
ShiningConcepts
|
dbtqasa
|
dbtq402
| 22
| 11
|
CMV: The media's use of the words 'exercise' and 'weight loss' are counterproductive to people trying to make healthy decisions
**Title clarification: I'd like to (but can't obviously) change the title to limit it to Vox's usage in this scenario, not to generalize to the media in general. **
I recently saw a lengthy [Vox article](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories) that supposedly summarizes many studies and comes to the conclusion that exercise is not particularly helpful for weight loss.
However, by and large, this article and others like it really describe why '**low/medium intensity cardio** exercise is bad for weight loss. Further, most weight loss as a proxy for *body fat loss* - which is likely the true goal of most of the people who say that they want to 'lose weight'.
My view:
The misuse of these terms causes:
* Over-obsession of weight as a proxy for health (instead of body fat or waistline or something else. Yes, I understand that this is an easy thing to measure. But I think a decreased obsession of this single measure could increase ways to define health by different standards or promote innovations in things like better body fat measurement devices.
* Misleading about exercise. Catabolic and anabolic (over-simplistically cardio v. strength training) have vastly different results for body composition and the media's generalization of 'running doesn't cause weight loss' to 'exercise doesn't cause weight loss' is misleading **and inaccurate**.
* Combined, these factors drive people away from exercise and particularly anabolic exercise which can have massive benefits *whilst also helping people achieve their underlying goal of losing body fat*.
* Additionally, thought the Vox article touches upon it lightly, this turning away from exercise prevents people from attaining the other great benefits of exercise such as decreased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.
As an example of the type of positive effects that I feel can get suppressed, a study (link below) found with high significance (1 in 1000 chance that the results were due to chance) that women who did strength training lost body fat while maintaining the same body weight. This doesn't make for a glamorous headline, but I believe is exactly the type of results that people would want.
I understand that part of the headline says "healthy decisions". For the purpose of this let's say that a decrease in body fat is, for most people concerned with this, chances are that a decrease in body fat will increase longevity and quality of life. Additionally, a decrease in risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. gained as a result of exercising I see as 'healthy'. Arguments that try to attack my definition of "healthy" are unlikely to CMV (but try if you want to).
Study link: http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(98)00094-7/abstract
Edit: Broken link. Can you escape a parenthesis in an embedded link? The study link has a close parenthesis that makes it impossible to link with [](). Thanks!
Edit 2: Bullets.
Edit 3: Title clarification.
|
Most of the coverage I have seen (in the U.K.) has stressed that exercise has many health benefits, however concentrating on exercise as the main method of weight-loss specifically isn't particularly effective compared with eating less.
I don't think the use of the words weight loss in this context is particularly misleading - and neither is the word 'exercise'
|
I think you tried to use bullet points. You have to put a full line ([enter key]) between bullet points for something to work.
|
5m9fnh
|
CMV: The media's use of the words 'exercise' and 'weight loss' are counterproductive to people trying to make healthy decisions
|
**Title clarification: I'd like to (but can't obviously) change the title to limit it to Vox's usage in this scenario, not to generalize to the media in general. **
I recently saw a lengthy [Vox article](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories) that supposedly summarizes many studies and comes to the conclusion that exercise is not particularly helpful for weight loss.
However, by and large, this article and others like it really describe why '**low/medium intensity cardio** exercise is bad for weight loss. Further, most weight loss as a proxy for *body fat loss* - which is likely the true goal of most of the people who say that they want to 'lose weight'.
My view:
The misuse of these terms causes:
* Over-obsession of weight as a proxy for health (instead of body fat or waistline or something else. Yes, I understand that this is an easy thing to measure. But I think a decreased obsession of this single measure could increase ways to define health by different standards or promote innovations in things like better body fat measurement devices.
* Misleading about exercise. Catabolic and anabolic (over-simplistically cardio v. strength training) have vastly different results for body composition and the media's generalization of 'running doesn't cause weight loss' to 'exercise doesn't cause weight loss' is misleading **and inaccurate**.
* Combined, these factors drive people away from exercise and particularly anabolic exercise which can have massive benefits *whilst also helping people achieve their underlying goal of losing body fat*.
* Additionally, thought the Vox article touches upon it lightly, this turning away from exercise prevents people from attaining the other great benefits of exercise such as decreased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.
As an example of the type of positive effects that I feel can get suppressed, a study (link below) found with high significance (1 in 1000 chance that the results were due to chance) that women who did strength training lost body fat while maintaining the same body weight. This doesn't make for a glamorous headline, but I believe is exactly the type of results that people would want.
I understand that part of the headline says "healthy decisions". For the purpose of this let's say that a decrease in body fat is, for most people concerned with this, chances are that a decrease in body fat will increase longevity and quality of life. Additionally, a decrease in risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. gained as a result of exercising I see as 'healthy'. Arguments that try to attack my definition of "healthy" are unlikely to CMV (but try if you want to).
Study link: http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(98)00094-7/abstract
Edit: Broken link. Can you escape a parenthesis in an embedded link? The study link has a close parenthesis that makes it impossible to link with [](). Thanks!
Edit 2: Bullets.
Edit 3: Title clarification.
| 1,483,653,883
|
barrycl
|
dc1vkg6
|
dc1tqk1
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive.
This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV.
|
>it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
You may have missed something here? To me, the point of the joke is that whore still means whore, and slut still means slut, but it's funny because it's applied to someone who doesn't actually fit those stereotypes.
So maybe it can be found offensive by some people as the words are still offensive words with offensive meanings, it's just that you're directing them at someone unexpected.
|
I'll focus on one thing in particular. Do you know what the word faggot means? Most people like to say it means a bundle of sticks which is only a half truth, it's the sticks used for kindling to burn gay people to death. So when someone calls me a faggot how should I take it. Gay people have been murdered for their existence for a long time. Calling gay people faggots is literally meant as a death threat. There's no other way to take it. it's going to be offensive no matter what.
|
5muu2m
|
CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive.
|
This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV.
| 1,483,926,710
|
JayStarr1082
|
dchagu2
|
dc7jfy7
| 1
| -1
|
CMV: It is illogical to believe any religion
Now don't get me wrong, I'm an open-minded person and I will believe in something if it is proven to be true or there is good reasoning behind it, however I struggle to understand why some people manage to fully devote themselves and believe in religions which implore outlandish tales and one or more godly deities who have never actually shown themselves to us in a way that can be proven.
I understand people feel that God speaks to them or other such scenarios but how do they know that is God?
I can also see why in some cases believing in religion allows a person to have faith in something and draw power from their belief to do what they might not have otherwise been able to do, such as motivating themselves.
Anyway, over to you lovely people to see if you can change my view of this or to just give me your own perspective. :)
|
As I think often happens in these scenarios, your claim is that a belief cannot be logically held. Any belief can be logically held provided that the information upon which it is based leads the believer to that conclusion. Nowhere in this is it required that these foundations or their consequent belief accurately reflect reality (i.e. are true) nor that the believer possess perfect knowledge about the universe.
People can be wrong. People can be wrong without knowing they are wrong. People who possess information that does not accurately reflect reality will use that information to logically arrive at beliefs that do not accurately reflect reality. They arrived at the beliefs logically regardless.
When you were a child, you were told Santa Claus exists. All the discoverable evidence pointed to his existence being true: presents appeared under your tree, people talked about him, drew pictures of him, explained how he could exist in a way you couldn't directly perceive. You wrote him a letter and he responded.
Based upon this, you logically arrived at the conclusion that Santa Claus was real. Was this a true belief? Of course not. But you logically arrived at it regardless.
|
Sorry, I should note that I'm not the OP here.
That said, I think you're wrong about burden of proof here. Your first sentence is correct - the burden of proof sits with the person making the claim. But you don't need to prove that the claim is wrong to dismiss it...if those with the burden of proof did not adequately meet it.
The burden of proof on the question of is there a god rests with those who believe a god exists. I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist to say, "based on your lack of proof I can dismiss your claim." The OP never once makes a claim that a god doesn't exist, and so therefore doesn't have the burden of proof.
|
5mxkbq
|
CMV: It is illogical to believe any religion
|
Now don't get me wrong, I'm an open-minded person and I will believe in something if it is proven to be true or there is good reasoning behind it, however I struggle to understand why some people manage to fully devote themselves and believe in religions which implore outlandish tales and one or more godly deities who have never actually shown themselves to us in a way that can be proven.
I understand people feel that God speaks to them or other such scenarios but how do they know that is God?
I can also see why in some cases believing in religion allows a person to have faith in something and draw power from their belief to do what they might not have otherwise been able to do, such as motivating themselves.
Anyway, over to you lovely people to see if you can change my view of this or to just give me your own perspective. :)
| 1,483,967,458
|
Tommy666567
|
dc743kn
|
dc73k6w
| 63
| 3
|
CMV: Gender dysphoria may be a mental disorder... and that's okay.
The transgender experience, referred to as gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) by medical professionals, had been dubbed a mental disorder for decades until recent years.
According to Wikipedia (ha, yes, I know, but it's hard to find unbiased sources on this subject), "GID is classified as a disorder by the ICD-10 CM but was reclassified as gender dysphoria by the DSM-5. Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender, and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals. The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues."
I have read studies, articles, and a multitude of opinion pieces on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that gender dysphoria may in fact be a mental disorder... but that's okay. In fact, it is better for transgender individuals IF their condition is considered a mental disorder. Why? Because due to the new label of "gender dysphoria" and the removal of the term GID from most mental disorder manuals, many insurance companies will no longer pay for medical procedures related to gender dysphoria, as it is no longer classified as a mental disorder, but rather a cosmetic procedure. This is problematic because sex reassignment surgery (SRS) is a very expensive--and a very necessary--procedure for transgender individuals to undergo. Unlike mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar depression, therapy and medication have been proven mostly ineffective for treating GID.
Why are medical professionals suddenly against classifying GID as a mental disorder? A few reasons. 1) the social stigma against mental disorders, which can cause stress and depression in transgender individuals, 2) transgender persons' adamant refusal of their condition being a mental disorder, and 3) the fact that much of the stress transgender individuals feel stems from their environment rather than from the condition itself.
In reference to number 3, it is impossible to determine if ALL transgender individuals experience stress purely based on social stigma, especially considering how gender dysphoria is defined by many transgender people: strong and persistent discomfort with one's biological sex. This extreme state of dysphoria would not disappear if gender dysphoria were accepted socially. That is, if the descriptions I have read in articles and on Tumblr are accurate depictions of the experience.
I'm posting this here because believing that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is controversial, and I'm not sure how popular this belief is anymore. I obviously have no problem with transgender individuals, and I do think that SRS is the best possible treatment for the condition, but I'm adamant to dismiss its categorization of "mental illness" because, unlike, homosexuality, it cannot be observed in nature (since other animals do not perform gender like we do), and it CAN mentally harm the person suffering from it. Whether it's a born or developed trait is irrelevant since other mental disorders can be both born and environmentally shaped.
**EDIT:** Quite a few users have pointed out to me that the terms "gender dysphoria" and "transgender" are not mutually exclusive, and I agree. I had forgotten that "transgender" was now more of an umbrella term to encompass a variety of different mental states and statuses. To clarify my original point, when I say "gender dysphoria" or "transgender" in the context of my argument, I am referring to a person who feels uncomfortable with their biological sex. This can oftentimes result in stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicide. "Mental disorder" refers to "a diagnosis by a mental health professional of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life." I feel that the symptoms often described in trans individuals correlate directly to some type of mental health issue, hence my post. It is not "normal" to feel that your mental state of gender contradicts your biological state of sex. Is that inherently wrong or immoral? Of course not. At least not in my opinion. But you cannot deny that it is abnormal, just as depression is considered abnormal. Many transpeople are opposed to the term mental disorder because it carries a negative connotation. I say so what? Let's destigmatize mental illness, and we'll be living in a much better world. We all have issues.
|
Gender dysphoria and being trans ARE synonymous. Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) are medical terms for being transgender.
Gender dysphoria: the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.
I don't know what else to say to your comment because the very structure of it is rooted in inaccurate terminology.
|
True. But there are some negative effects to thinking your a car or a lizard etc. It's most likely going to severely effect your life because you won't be able to partake in most human interactions successfully. Apart from the social stigma, if I was to think I was a different gender, it's probably not going to effect my life too much. (apart from from an anatomical perspective)
|
5my4j3
|
CMV: Gender dysphoria may be a mental disorder... and that's okay.
|
The transgender experience, referred to as gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) by medical professionals, had been dubbed a mental disorder for decades until recent years.
According to Wikipedia (ha, yes, I know, but it's hard to find unbiased sources on this subject), "GID is classified as a disorder by the ICD-10 CM but was reclassified as gender dysphoria by the DSM-5. Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender, and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals. The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues."
I have read studies, articles, and a multitude of opinion pieces on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that gender dysphoria may in fact be a mental disorder... but that's okay. In fact, it is better for transgender individuals IF their condition is considered a mental disorder. Why? Because due to the new label of "gender dysphoria" and the removal of the term GID from most mental disorder manuals, many insurance companies will no longer pay for medical procedures related to gender dysphoria, as it is no longer classified as a mental disorder, but rather a cosmetic procedure. This is problematic because sex reassignment surgery (SRS) is a very expensive--and a very necessary--procedure for transgender individuals to undergo. Unlike mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar depression, therapy and medication have been proven mostly ineffective for treating GID.
Why are medical professionals suddenly against classifying GID as a mental disorder? A few reasons. 1) the social stigma against mental disorders, which can cause stress and depression in transgender individuals, 2) transgender persons' adamant refusal of their condition being a mental disorder, and 3) the fact that much of the stress transgender individuals feel stems from their environment rather than from the condition itself.
In reference to number 3, it is impossible to determine if ALL transgender individuals experience stress purely based on social stigma, especially considering how gender dysphoria is defined by many transgender people: strong and persistent discomfort with one's biological sex. This extreme state of dysphoria would not disappear if gender dysphoria were accepted socially. That is, if the descriptions I have read in articles and on Tumblr are accurate depictions of the experience.
I'm posting this here because believing that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is controversial, and I'm not sure how popular this belief is anymore. I obviously have no problem with transgender individuals, and I do think that SRS is the best possible treatment for the condition, but I'm adamant to dismiss its categorization of "mental illness" because, unlike, homosexuality, it cannot be observed in nature (since other animals do not perform gender like we do), and it CAN mentally harm the person suffering from it. Whether it's a born or developed trait is irrelevant since other mental disorders can be both born and environmentally shaped.
**EDIT:** Quite a few users have pointed out to me that the terms "gender dysphoria" and "transgender" are not mutually exclusive, and I agree. I had forgotten that "transgender" was now more of an umbrella term to encompass a variety of different mental states and statuses. To clarify my original point, when I say "gender dysphoria" or "transgender" in the context of my argument, I am referring to a person who feels uncomfortable with their biological sex. This can oftentimes result in stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicide. "Mental disorder" refers to "a diagnosis by a mental health professional of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life." I feel that the symptoms often described in trans individuals correlate directly to some type of mental health issue, hence my post. It is not "normal" to feel that your mental state of gender contradicts your biological state of sex. Is that inherently wrong or immoral? Of course not. At least not in my opinion. But you cannot deny that it is abnormal, just as depression is considered abnormal. Many transpeople are opposed to the term mental disorder because it carries a negative connotation. I say so what? Let's destigmatize mental illness, and we'll be living in a much better world. We all have issues.
| 1,483,974,383
|
OFGhost
|
dc79b5k
|
dc78eoq
| 18
| 5
|
CMV: It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine with tap water or cold water instead of hot water.
I've been having this small argument with my girlfriend when we wash clothes. It just comes up every time we both do the laundry. She believes hot water is better but can't explain why, says it's how it was at her home and that there must have been a good reason.
I, on the other hand, believe that the benefits outweigh the negative side effects. I went online and found little evidence to the contrary.
Note that I am no expert and that the following may be false. They are my perception. Feel free to correct me, but the ultimate goal if you wish to change my view is to show me that the negative effects of washing with cold or tap water outweigh the benefits.
Benefits:
1. Less electricity needed to heat up more water since the heating water tank won't be involved.
2. Cottons and wool will shrink less than in hot water.
3. I would win the argument with my SO. It's the small things.
4. Seriously, maybe there are more benefits, I'm not sure, but energy efficiency is my main concern.
Negative effects:
1. Maybe the clothes won't be as soft. It's the only argument my SO had. But I use a softener thing like Downy, so I don't think it matters.
2. ???
3. ???
4. ???
Also I know there might be users who think they are really clever and point out that my statement started with "It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine..." and follow it up saying that it's far better to wash clothes by hand or by some technological marvel. You won't win a delta. You will be disqualified. I will sully your grave and your children's graves with my mismatched socks because you are weak, your lineage is weak, and you won't survive the winter. [*Disclaimer before you think I can have an original thought of my own: modified quote about pineapple on pizza from an unknown girl to create a humorous attempt of the contempt I would feel for you should this happen*](https://i.sli.mg/kqbBdC.jpg)
So do your thing Reddit, quell a gentle feud between two humans bound by love and waffles.
|
A lot of weird explanations here.
There is a scientific consensus on hot vs. cold. Here are a few things:
**Why cold?**
- Yes, it saves energy- this is a no-brainer and why I usually use cold water.
- Cold water keeps colors from bleeding- another big one
- Clothes won't shrink as much in cold water, although the dryer basically negates using cold water.
- Cold water won't "set" stains. With hot water, protein based stains like blood, for example, will set. The reason is because hot water breaks those proteins down and virtually binds them with the fabric. It's a bad idea to wash blood, animal fat/grease, poop, or other protein based stains in hot water. The things is, sometime you don't know what has those stains on them, so cold is better.
- A lot of the perception for hot water is this: We bath in hot water, we wash dishes in hot water, we wash our hands with hot water... *hot water must be better at cleaning*. Cold water is slightly less efficient at dissolving, but it still works just fine. Your clothes don't care about the temperature.
- Cold water does not affect the stiffness of the clothes. Whether you hang dry or tumble dry, the temperature of both items will change to either hot (in a dryer) or room temp (hung) before they actually dry.
**Why hot?**
- Hot water is a slightly better solvent. When it comes to things like white clothes, there is no color to bleed and it may help the clothes appear whiter.
- It may help sanitize. Depending on how hot your water gets (mine gets scalding), it could kill some bacteria/germs. The water heater at your house has to maintain a certain temp to keep some microorganisms from growing. So things like white sheets, towels, white underwear (sans poop stains), etc, would be better in hot water.
So when it comes down to it, cold is the better option almost every time. It's not that much worse of a solvent. The hot water also doesn't do a *great* job with sanitizing.
Why don't you all compromise and run it on "warm"? The big benefit there is that it uses less energy than hot and also in most washers, it fills up almost twice as fast. I use warm sometimes for no reason other than it finishes 10 minutes sooner. Just don't use it if suspect something being badly stained.
Then again, I'm not an expert. Just someone who reads weird shit. Maybe someone better informed can correct me.
|
Here's a simple experiment for you.
Wash half of your dishes in cold water, and half in hot (and I'm talking dirty dishes, not just ones with crumbs on them).
You should find that the soap soaps better in hot water, and the food comes off much more easily.
Then there's the fact that [there's a tenth of a gram of poop on your average pair of underwear](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/washing-machines-loaded-bacteria-dirty-clothes/story?id=10751420). Your water needs to be between 140 and 150 degrees to kill germs, otherwise you just spread them between your clothes.
Man up and tell your girlfriend she was right.
|
5mytbe
|
CMV: It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine with tap water or cold water instead of hot water.
|
I've been having this small argument with my girlfriend when we wash clothes. It just comes up every time we both do the laundry. She believes hot water is better but can't explain why, says it's how it was at her home and that there must have been a good reason.
I, on the other hand, believe that the benefits outweigh the negative side effects. I went online and found little evidence to the contrary.
Note that I am no expert and that the following may be false. They are my perception. Feel free to correct me, but the ultimate goal if you wish to change my view is to show me that the negative effects of washing with cold or tap water outweigh the benefits.
Benefits:
1. Less electricity needed to heat up more water since the heating water tank won't be involved.
2. Cottons and wool will shrink less than in hot water.
3. I would win the argument with my SO. It's the small things.
4. Seriously, maybe there are more benefits, I'm not sure, but energy efficiency is my main concern.
Negative effects:
1. Maybe the clothes won't be as soft. It's the only argument my SO had. But I use a softener thing like Downy, so I don't think it matters.
2. ???
3. ???
4. ???
Also I know there might be users who think they are really clever and point out that my statement started with "It's better to do your laundry in the washing machine..." and follow it up saying that it's far better to wash clothes by hand or by some technological marvel. You won't win a delta. You will be disqualified. I will sully your grave and your children's graves with my mismatched socks because you are weak, your lineage is weak, and you won't survive the winter. [*Disclaimer before you think I can have an original thought of my own: modified quote about pineapple on pizza from an unknown girl to create a humorous attempt of the contempt I would feel for you should this happen*](https://i.sli.mg/kqbBdC.jpg)
So do your thing Reddit, quell a gentle feud between two humans bound by love and waffles.
| 1,483,981,321
|
Some_french_canadian
|
dc7dyz6
|
dc7dacq
| 6
| 0
|
CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay
I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man.
Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong.
Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that.
No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection.
Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences.
I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him.
Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.
|
>I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past.
I think that's completely your prerogative and is perfectly OK. But if this is a major make-or-break issue, I think that it should be brought up early on. In your first example, you say:
>Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. **After a few years in,** once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience.
If a person's sexual experiences are so important, shouldn't that come up pretty early on? Some people do have red lines that they won't cross - but if that's the case, it's pretty shitty to date someone for *years* before mentioning it and immediately dumping them.
Reminds me of a topic I read before, where a guy wanted to feel justified in ending a three year relationship because his SO asked if he had ever thought of having a threesome. To him, the *mere mention* of having a threesome was grounds for instantly ending a relationship. But if they could never even discuss it without the relationship ending, how would their SO even know that?
That's just poor communication skills, IMO.
|
I don't think there's many people with an issue of someone not dating someone because of their sexual history. The issue is really only when there's a double standard. So, if a man says he won't date a woman who has had sex with 20 guys, but he's had sex with 20 women, then people take an issue with that.
Because he is judging her moral character on a choice he also made and shaming her for doing something that is not really morally wrong.
The same goes for if this was a woman upset over the number of partners a man had, but had the same amount or more.
Also, there's no real reason I can think of to why the number of partners or sexual history as a whole changes the bond you form with someone. It's just another experience that is different. The same goes for people who didn't grow up under the same circumstance or people who have different outlooks on life.
|
5mzu9h
|
CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay
|
I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man.
Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong.
Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that.
No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection.
Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences.
I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him.
Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.
| 1,483,991,100
|
TheChemist158
|
dc7pnhg
|
dc7oovf
| 18
| 2
|
CMV: Fake news is a non-issue. The onus lies with news consumers, not news provider.
There's a romance in the american mythology that every vote should count. To get to that point, it is assumed that the american electorate is capable and informed. By blaming fake news, we are acknowledging that the electorate is incapable and easily misinformed. This is incompatible with the belief that the american people know best. To be clear, i want people to take as a given that the american people do know best. I don't entirely believe that, but it is taken as a given in enough situations to warrant wondering about the implications if true.
In other words, I'd like you to change this opinion: if I believe that the american electorate is ultimately capable of governing itself, fake news shouldn't concern me because the electorate should be able to rise above it and shouldn't need to have its hand held or its mouth censored.
A consequence of this is that there shouldn't need to be a police what news is delivered to people. For example, facebook shouldn't have to be more conscious about its role as a steward of information. It shouldn't even consider itself as a steward of news for the fact that alternative sources of good information are available and easily accessible. It should be very clear that facebook is not the only source of information. For example, people are able to look up the emails or search for whether or not something had been definitely proven as opposed to insinuated. So ultimately, in this case, because people are capable, they should be able to access those better sources of information. In other words, it's mostly their fault for seeing the equivalent of an ad, and buying into the messaging because it flatters their ideology and prior beliefs.
In less words: If you believe in the myth that the american electorate is capable and informed, you cannot blame fake news for the results of this election or any other.
|
There can be and are multiple problems at once. Consumer responsibility is 100% an issue, and I wholeheartedly agree we need to be more conscientious consumers. But that doesn't mean fake news is not also a problem.
There's more information than we can process and vet in this world. It's not great for us to have to fact-check everything for bias, as is becoming increasingly required. It's exhausting. Moreover, you *can't* vet everything, consider confidential sources etc.
A useful parallel is consumer protection laws. One could argue there shouldn't be any such laws, and the consumer should fact-check and test the claims of any product. But that would be exhausting, unrealistic, and we might wind up with real harm if it were required. So we should have certain standards that we can rely on. Of course, you shouldn't be an idiot and believe all the advertisements you see though. The product being peddled as news is equally hazardous when it becomes too far misleading. The solution isn't saying its' all on personal responsibility, but striking a balance between recognizing individual responsibility, and minimum standards.
|
Your analogy to the scientific/medical community isn't accurate though. These communities are made up of experts who are either already aware of these shitty sources or have the knowledge and background to recognize them for what they are immediately.
When it comes to the news consumed by the general public, most of them are not experts in the field that is being discussed in the news that are consuming and are not experts in journalism. Many of them don't have the training or experience when that is required to identify what makes a good source and what doesn't. If they are given two pieces of competing information, they may not be able to immediately tell which is the accurate reliable source and which one is the shit source. Furthermore, most of these people then don't have the time that it takes to track down everything that has been said about these sources in order to determine which is more credible.
People should be able to trust that if they are given something that says "news" on it it, it is actually news.
|
5n2i0w
|
CMV: Fake news is a non-issue. The onus lies with news consumers, not news provider.
|
There's a romance in the american mythology that every vote should count. To get to that point, it is assumed that the american electorate is capable and informed. By blaming fake news, we are acknowledging that the electorate is incapable and easily misinformed. This is incompatible with the belief that the american people know best. To be clear, i want people to take as a given that the american people do know best. I don't entirely believe that, but it is taken as a given in enough situations to warrant wondering about the implications if true.
In other words, I'd like you to change this opinion: if I believe that the american electorate is ultimately capable of governing itself, fake news shouldn't concern me because the electorate should be able to rise above it and shouldn't need to have its hand held or its mouth censored.
A consequence of this is that there shouldn't need to be a police what news is delivered to people. For example, facebook shouldn't have to be more conscious about its role as a steward of information. It shouldn't even consider itself as a steward of news for the fact that alternative sources of good information are available and easily accessible. It should be very clear that facebook is not the only source of information. For example, people are able to look up the emails or search for whether or not something had been definitely proven as opposed to insinuated. So ultimately, in this case, because people are capable, they should be able to access those better sources of information. In other words, it's mostly their fault for seeing the equivalent of an ad, and buying into the messaging because it flatters their ideology and prior beliefs.
In less words: If you believe in the myth that the american electorate is capable and informed, you cannot blame fake news for the results of this election or any other.
| 1,484,017,844
|
DangoDale
|
dc8ambe
|
dc8a7dj
| 11
| 1
|
CMV: I don't think companies should have to hire to people just to meet a quota and provide diversity
This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/facebook-s-hiring-process-hinders-its-effort-to-create-a-diverse-workforce).
I don't get how this is a bad thing. I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this to give me a different perspective on it.
My points for employers shouldn't have to hire employees to diversify the office are:
1. They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter. By doing this it promotes race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures.
2. It's reverse discrimination. You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now. Employers should be blind to race and discrimination when choosing employees.
3. Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
|
You're misunderstanding what the issue is.
>This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is here
Did you read the article? That's not why there's backlash. The backlash is because, at the end of a multi-layered recruitment process, where candidates are considered by teams of different people for multiple qualities, a small team of exclusively white & Asian men make the final hiring decisions. This process (1) is **unique to the engineering department** and is different from all other Facebook hiring processes, and (2) **prioritizes degree prestige and number of existing favorable references within the Facebook company** over things like job experience & capability.
It's not like this team of engineers is sitting around cackling manically while specifically denying blacks and Latinos employment. However, if they keep recruiting from the same school names and the same internal references, they're going to keep getting more of the same; white dudes and Asian dudes. An unbiased hiring process would result in a more diverse workforce. This process is unquestionably (and needlessly) biased. The lack of diversity is a *byproduct* of recruiting from the same tired channels.
>I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
In addition, please note that "quotas" are never mentioned anywhere in that article. There are no diversity quotas to speak of. **Diversity quotas are not a part of Affirmative Action and are illegal in the United States.** You've constructed a strawman.
>They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter.
If you're a qualified candidate, where you've gone to school and how many people you know who *already* work at Facebook shouldn't matter. But these are the primary attributes on which this hiring team is focused. When you focus on those attributes primarily, you get a lot of white dudes and Asian dudes.
>You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now.
Affirmative Action does not aim to favor minorities and women. [Quotas were ruled illegal in 1978 (5th paragraph)](http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/affirmative-action.html). It just prohibits employers from specifically discriminating against an individual based on their race. The situation you describe/envision **does not exist in the United States.** In that way, yes, it favors minorities and women by granting them the same immunity that white dudes enjoy when applying for jobs. Equal.
**It's not about 'fixing' past discrimination; it's about ensuring that past systemic discrimination doesn't impact the current outcome.**
>Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
It absolutely means diversity of life experience and perspective. Perhaps not on technical, work-related issues, but definitely in terms of the intrapersonal relationships that are formed. Strong relationships are the basis of good teamwork and productive efforts.
EDITS made for readability.
|
Your view makes the assumption that the hiring process is fair and balanced, which isn't the case. We know that those with white sounding names are more likely to get a call back than those with black sounding names, even when the resume is the same. [There was another study that found that when Orchestras used blind auditions females were 11% more likely to move on to the next round.] (http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-“blind”-auditions-female-musicians) specifically targeting a diverse audience is one way to make sure that good people aren't slipping through the cracks because of unconscious biases. When you look at companies who are pushing diversity in the work place those hired out of the push aren't clearly less qualified then those already there.
Another aspect is that making sure the team is diverse can have some very positive effects on the business. A woman or minority likely sees things differently than a white individual and that different perspective can bring ideas and solutions to the table the others may not have thought of. Other times being diverse may be the best way to get the job done. A police department that is diverse will often function much better and be more trusted than those that aren't. If it's diverse everyone feels like they are represented and if you're represented you're more likely to trust them. People may also want to only talk to specific people when reporting a crime. It's not uncommon for women who have just been raped to only want to talk to a women because they feel vulnerable to men and because they feel a women may be better able to relate. In that position the best way to get the information needed to go a successfully prosecute someone may literally be having enough women that one is able to take that call.
|
5n5l9t
|
CMV: I don't think companies should have to hire to people just to meet a quota and provide diversity
|
This is stemming off from something I saw about Facebook receiving backlash for hiring candidates based off of their resumes and experiences. Link to the story is [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/facebook-s-hiring-process-hinders-its-effort-to-create-a-diverse-workforce).
I don't get how this is a bad thing. I'm all for diversity but I feel like it's counter productive to hire people just to fulfill a quota rather than get the people that are the best at the job.
I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this to give me a different perspective on it.
My points for employers shouldn't have to hire employees to diversify the office are:
1. They should be able to hire the best employees for their job openings, if you are a qualified candidate your race or gender shouldn't matter. By doing this it promotes race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures.
2. It's reverse discrimination. You cannot fix past discriminations with more discrimination, all people are equal under the laws of the United States and should be treated equally. It wasn't fair or right when white men were favored in the past, it isn't fair to favor minorities and women now. Employers should be blind to race and discrimination when choosing employees.
3. Having people of different races or ethnicities does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion.
| 1,484,061,793
|
vinniethepooh2
|
dc8t8ae
|
dc8t6g3
| 48
| 6
|
CMV:If Jewish people can't be anti-semitic, then non-whites cannot be racist
America is a White Supremacist country that is slowly reversing. The term race was coined by a European person that justified race as being a a huge biological difference that meant that white people were superior to blacks and gave reason to them being subjugated as slaves in the Americas. That caused racism. It is like saying that anti-semiticism being created by non-Jewish people to discriminate against them can now be turned around to say Jewish people are anti-semitic.
Please don't give me examples of bigotry and hatred committed by minorities in America. The hatred was caused by White Supremacy.
Edit: I don't really understand how criticizing and fighting your own religion is anti-said religion. It's like saying protestants fighting over puritans is anti-Christian. What?
And fighting within your continent over land and resources is not racism, it's tribalism.
Taking land back from invaders is not racism, it's taking land back. If the native Americans were able to kick us out, it's called defending yourself, not racism.
|
Anti-semitism has an explicit target (Judaism and Jewish people), racism without any other descriptors has no such target. Racism could be targeting any given race.
So while you *could* argue that it's impossible to be racist/prejudiced against a group that you yourself belong to (therefore making it impossible for a Jewish person to be anit-semitic) you can't apply that logic to everyone who's not white and unspecified racism. It's trivial to imagine a black person who's racist when it comes to Asian people or vice versa.
Someone better versed in these things will probably come up with a proper name for this logical fallacy, but the point is that you've gone "If A->B then X->Y" where A and X are not a perfect analogy for the relationship you're talking about (neither are B and Y for that matter).
That's not even tackling the idea that an ethnic minority *can* be racially prejudiced against white people in the West.
Nor have we covered the rest of the world. I'm not that well travelled, but if you go to another continent where white people are a tiny minority you might find those prejudiced against white people.
Lastly, let's tackle your premise. All of the above is assuming that Jewish people can't be anti-semitic. Who's actually claiming that? What's the argument there? Have you heard of the concept of [internalised misogyny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism#Internalized_misogyny)? It's not too much of a leap to think that someone might have internalised anti-semitism.
|
You're conflating a single religion with every race. Your claim is closer to "if Jews cannot be anti-smetc or islamaphobic or any other religious-based descrimination then non-whites can't be racist. Judaism is but a single subgroup of religion whereas race can be seen as the broad category instead of merely a small portion.
|
5n813p
|
CMV:If Jewish people can't be anti-semitic, then non-whites cannot be racist
|
America is a White Supremacist country that is slowly reversing. The term race was coined by a European person that justified race as being a a huge biological difference that meant that white people were superior to blacks and gave reason to them being subjugated as slaves in the Americas. That caused racism. It is like saying that anti-semiticism being created by non-Jewish people to discriminate against them can now be turned around to say Jewish people are anti-semitic.
Please don't give me examples of bigotry and hatred committed by minorities in America. The hatred was caused by White Supremacy.
Edit: I don't really understand how criticizing and fighting your own religion is anti-said religion. It's like saying protestants fighting over puritans is anti-Christian. What?
And fighting within your continent over land and resources is not racism, it's tribalism.
Taking land back from invaders is not racism, it's taking land back. If the native Americans were able to kick us out, it's called defending yourself, not racism.
| 1,484,085,731
|
iPissOnRebelGraves
|
dc9e3x1
|
dc9dn1b
| 9
| 7
|
CMV: I am starting to wonder whenever transgenderism is a real thing
So before anyone says anything, I have been spending the last 6 months living as a transgender girl since I believed that I was trans and things started to get better once I accepted it and started to be proactive about it
Being trans has cost me the love of my life, my mental health and has completely broken me. Its turning me into a horrible person who is alienating anyone who cares about me..
Honestly I just want to fuck being trans, I mean I dealt fine for 26 years in the "wrong body" and I am questioning whenever that is more along the lines of general body image issues than having a body with the wrong parts attached to it.
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x/abstract
A systematic review of studies showed that 80% had a quality of life increase from transitioning.
As it noted.
>Compared with FM, MF individuals had more remaining gender
dysphoria after the transition.2 Homosexual MF individuals
reported more regrets about the transition than those who were
nonhomosexual.1
So, some proportion of people do regret it, but 80% of people see an improvement in quality of life and are better off.
|
I *think* that your argument should be phrased "I don't think that 'feeling' as if I'm a different gender should be grounds for switching gender roles".
Or *possibly* "I don't think that there's a biological basis for transgenderism".
I mean, people clearly are transgender in that they adopt the other gender's roles and that we call people who do so transgender.
|
5n8jdo
|
CMV: I am starting to wonder whenever transgenderism is a real thing
|
So before anyone says anything, I have been spending the last 6 months living as a transgender girl since I believed that I was trans and things started to get better once I accepted it and started to be proactive about it
Being trans has cost me the love of my life, my mental health and has completely broken me. Its turning me into a horrible person who is alienating anyone who cares about me..
Honestly I just want to fuck being trans, I mean I dealt fine for 26 years in the "wrong body" and I am questioning whenever that is more along the lines of general body image issues than having a body with the wrong parts attached to it.
| 1,484,091,293
|
skyepilotgurl
|
dcbwg8o
|
dca3t3z
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend.
She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot.
I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else.
She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much.
Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is.
I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went.
Please tell me why I am wrong.
|
It is immoral, illegal and you will regret the attention it brings to you. Revenge is only temporary. Regret lasts much longer.
|
well it's a long shot but if you're in california it's illegal now so there's that
edit: [it's illegal in 32 states.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn#United_States)
edit:
> to avoid other people go throug I went.
you're lying to yourself/rationalizing. you don't give a shit about that.
|
5n8p6q
|
CMV: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend.
|
She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot.
I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else.
She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much.
Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is.
I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went.
Please tell me why I am wrong.
| 1,484,093,002
|
Calmecac
|
dc9ixef
|
dc9ivok
| 55
| 29
|
CMV: Liberalism is superior to conservatism because liberals focus much more on Quality of Life
My claim is that Conservatives don't discuss any form of Quality of Life, and because of this, their worldview is inferior to liberalism when it comes to improving the world. Rather, they prefer to focus on laws that define right vs wrong (pro-life abortion stances), or freedom of choice (gun control). Because the focus is not on Quality of Life, successful implementation will not improve lives for humans in the world.
Conservatives never even discuss the idea, whereas liberal thinkers (like [The Young Turks in this video about Basic Universal Income](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjucF6ecr08), for instance) almost seem to discuss nothing else.
I think it's obvious that wanting to improve lives is a good thing, which is why I'm frequently flabbergasted when conservatives seem hell-bent on making life worse for people they judge as "unworthy" (people who qualify for welfare, for example).
**Edit**: A lot of people are trying to claim that Conservatives actually DO care about Quality of Life. Specifically, people are claiming that a pursuit of liberty and freedom will automatically increase Quality of Life, so by pursuing those ideals, Conservatives are showing their concern for Quality of Life. My CMV is about whether Conservatives ever use the Quality of Life argument to motivate their policies.
**What would convince me**:
I'd like to see a video of a speech by a well-known/public Conservative figure *directly* tying policies to the notion of Quality of Life.
(The implication being that if you make assumptions about what will improve Quality of Life, you will pursue those assumptions, and not actually end up with a better Quality of Life for people. Therefore, the Liberal framing of the problem is better, because they have correctly stated their goal.)
|
> The conservative views rights as their own personal set of tools for pursuing a higher quality of life
I deeply appreciate this thorough and in-depth response, but want to probe you more on this statement. If you can show me a Conservative person (I suppose I should specify that they need to be a "well-known" or "public" figure for me to be satisfied) actually claiming this in a speech, I'll be convinced enough to award you a delta.
My argument is that Conservatives never frame their approach to problems as a way to improve Quality of Life (the implication being that this prevents them from actually improving the lives of people, but I don't need to talk about succeessful implementation or effective policies in this CMV).
|
Give examples
|
5n9505
|
CMV: Liberalism is superior to conservatism because liberals focus much more on Quality of Life
|
My claim is that Conservatives don't discuss any form of Quality of Life, and because of this, their worldview is inferior to liberalism when it comes to improving the world. Rather, they prefer to focus on laws that define right vs wrong (pro-life abortion stances), or freedom of choice (gun control). Because the focus is not on Quality of Life, successful implementation will not improve lives for humans in the world.
Conservatives never even discuss the idea, whereas liberal thinkers (like [The Young Turks in this video about Basic Universal Income](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjucF6ecr08), for instance) almost seem to discuss nothing else.
I think it's obvious that wanting to improve lives is a good thing, which is why I'm frequently flabbergasted when conservatives seem hell-bent on making life worse for people they judge as "unworthy" (people who qualify for welfare, for example).
**Edit**: A lot of people are trying to claim that Conservatives actually DO care about Quality of Life. Specifically, people are claiming that a pursuit of liberty and freedom will automatically increase Quality of Life, so by pursuing those ideals, Conservatives are showing their concern for Quality of Life. My CMV is about whether Conservatives ever use the Quality of Life argument to motivate their policies.
**What would convince me**:
I'd like to see a video of a speech by a well-known/public Conservative figure *directly* tying policies to the notion of Quality of Life.
(The implication being that if you make assumptions about what will improve Quality of Life, you will pursue those assumptions, and not actually end up with a better Quality of Life for people. Therefore, the Liberal framing of the problem is better, because they have correctly stated their goal.)
| 1,484,097,825
|
nemicolopterus
|
dcah4f0
|
dc9o1ih
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: The Burkha is not a choice.
Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries.
I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate.
|
I would argue that it is a "choice", just one where the downsides heavily outweigh the upsides in that particular culture and is therefore unlikely to be chosen. As long as the option is there though, that is still defined as a choice.
You could choose to not wear any clothes in public, for example, you are just heavily discouraged from doing so due to various factors (e.g. legal, comfort, societal, etc.)
Giving a more extreme example, you could choose to repeatedly bang your head on your desk until you died. Again, it's highly unlikely you would do that but you still have the choice to do so.
|
It's less common and often involves violence reactions, but it does happen and I could link to news stories if you like - and some do involve the woman being threatened, hurt, or killed. But that it's a risky and/or bad choice doesn't make it not a choice, is my point.
Think about what you'd have to say if your standard for "not a choice" is that there are pressures against it. If someone breaks into a 7-11, murders their spouse, assaults a police officer, swears at a judge in court, etc. etc., are those not choices just because there are social pressures against such actions, physical risks, and other negative repercussions?
|
5nb9l5
|
CMV: The Burkha is not a choice.
|
Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries.
I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate.
| 1,484,126,786
|
DireSire
|
dca6fmx
|
dca6fi6
| 3
| 1
|
CMV: /r/streetwear is stupid
/r/streetwear seems to be all about spending lots of money on clothes that look like ass as long as they come from an expensive brand. People in the sub get angry that others submit posts of "generic" fits, but all of the popular posts are the exact same deal. A lot of good-looking fits get ignored because there aren't any top brands involved. I thought individuality was supposed to important for streetwear, yet there seems to be no individuality at all as everybody mindlessly picks up the same stuff. Is streetwear supposed to be more of a collectors hobby (picking up rare and valuable items) and not a fashion style?
|
Streetwear is almost like a lowbrow version of modern art. Yes, at a glance it all seems to fit into basic general trends that appear very similar. But the whole appeal lies in the details. It's all about taking the "standard outfit" and turning it on its head in some way. "Ahh, this guy is dressed how we all dress, but with these really goofy shades. Who would wear those? Why would he couple them with that outfit, it makes no sense!" That's how it *does* make sense; that's where the individuality lies.
"Damn, he's dressed like a hypebeast, but with plain-ass adidas instead of Jordans." That's a "statement," "fuck the kicks, I'm fly enough to not need them." To you it might not look like a major difference from the Jordans, but that's the fun of tweaking the look to people in the community. Who can catch each other off guard, while still overall looking cool?
|
This isn't limited to r/streetwear. Every passion or hobby has its own "no true Scotsman" circlejerk of hardcore users that only accept their interpretation. They tend to be the most active, so of course they're going to cast more votes on the content that they like.
The important thing is to look to them and consider what they're doing, but not take it as the definitive way to do that hobby because not everyone has the desire or means to go all out.
|
5nczpg
|
CMV: /r/streetwear is stupid
|
/r/streetwear seems to be all about spending lots of money on clothes that look like ass as long as they come from an expensive brand. People in the sub get angry that others submit posts of "generic" fits, but all of the popular posts are the exact same deal. A lot of good-looking fits get ignored because there aren't any top brands involved. I thought individuality was supposed to important for streetwear, yet there seems to be no individuality at all as everybody mindlessly picks up the same stuff. Is streetwear supposed to be more of a collectors hobby (picking up rare and valuable items) and not a fashion style?
| 1,484,150,979
|
YoloSwag9000
|
dcah2p3
|
dcagxjg
| 15
| 7
|
CMV: Spoons and Forks are better than chopsticks in every aspect.
I've eaten 3 square meals (sometimes more) for the past 22 years every day. That's a lot of food. My parents' own chopsticks and sometimes use them, but I prefer to use a spoon and fork when they're available simply because they are better and more optimal to use. Here's why.
They're intuitive. Each hand either has a spoon or a fork. Stab things with the fork and bring it to your mouth. Scoop things with your spoon and bring it to your mouth. You can also bring combinations of food onto your spoon at the same time as oppossed to chopsticks. Usually you get a clump of rice, *eat, get a clump of meat or whatever, *eat*, repeat process. Not optimal. Yes, you can use chopsticks in one hand while the other hand is free, however you can do the same thing with a spoon or a fork. Except, also people with chopsticks have to use a spoon (I mean usually do, not have to) when eating soups like ramen.
Chopsticks can also roll around if they are not put down on a napkin or towel or something. Forks and spoons don't require a certain surface to remain still when not being used.
This is why spoons and forks are better.
Please provide me with counterarguments and challenge my view.
I have no desire to use inadequate eating utensils if there are other utensils available that make it much easier for me to use.
|
They are booth inferior to the ultimate eating implement: the Spork.
Spork if clearly better than chopsticks for the reasons you mentioned, and it's better than the spoon/fork combination because it can all the same things but with one implement instead of two.
So if you truly have no "desire to use inadequate eating utensils" - you need to switch to sporks.
|
Depends on what you're eating, no?
This might be a silly example but there's a lpt that circulates sometimes saying you should eat cheetoes with chopsticks to avoid cheesy fingers. Neither a fork (cheetoes will crumble) or a spoon (easily slide off) are as effective. And fingers, the original method leaves you with cheese dust fingers.
|
5ndnqx
|
CMV: Spoons and Forks are better than chopsticks in every aspect.
|
I've eaten 3 square meals (sometimes more) for the past 22 years every day. That's a lot of food. My parents' own chopsticks and sometimes use them, but I prefer to use a spoon and fork when they're available simply because they are better and more optimal to use. Here's why.
They're intuitive. Each hand either has a spoon or a fork. Stab things with the fork and bring it to your mouth. Scoop things with your spoon and bring it to your mouth. You can also bring combinations of food onto your spoon at the same time as oppossed to chopsticks. Usually you get a clump of rice, *eat, get a clump of meat or whatever, *eat*, repeat process. Not optimal. Yes, you can use chopsticks in one hand while the other hand is free, however you can do the same thing with a spoon or a fork. Except, also people with chopsticks have to use a spoon (I mean usually do, not have to) when eating soups like ramen.
Chopsticks can also roll around if they are not put down on a napkin or towel or something. Forks and spoons don't require a certain surface to remain still when not being used.
This is why spoons and forks are better.
Please provide me with counterarguments and challenge my view.
I have no desire to use inadequate eating utensils if there are other utensils available that make it much easier for me to use.
| 1,484,157,515
|
markichi
|
dcanvxa
|
dcanfbp
| 15
| 3
|
CMV: The most ethically vegan thing to do is to commit suicide because human population impacts animal life more negatively than eating them.
Animals, in their current state, can be reproduced infinitely, given the resources at this current state in time.
Vegans make a big ethical stance that eating meat is not ethical because it takes away a life and all life is valuable, yet as the population rises, more animals will be pushed out of their homes as land development takes over. It seems to me that the most ethically vegan thing to do is not only mass castration, but mass suicide, you know, for the environment.
We don't fit into the food chain and there doesn't seem to be any meaning for us in nature. Environmentalists are more about sustaining the Earth for the future rather than saving it - they understand that there is no saving it, human presence will either deplete it entirely of its resources and die off or a disaster will occur and we will all die from it. We might as well do the former before the latter. CMV.
|
If vegans had done this instead of forming organizations and exposing cruel farming practices, there would've been a lot less animal rights advocacy. That advocacy has led to more vegans and vegetarians, more ethical and enforced farming standards, and an emerging market for alternatives to meat. None of this would have happened, at least nearly to the same extent, if vegans were wiped off the earth.
Analogously, if all environmentalists had killed themselves to protect the environment, there would've been no one left to advocate for it. Carbon taxes and pollution regulations would have never been adopted. But by influencing companies, policies, and governments, rather than acting solely as individuals, advocates had a much bigger impact on the environment. The recent Paris Accords, for example, will likely help the environment far more than mass suicide would.
In general, systemic change is far more influential than individual change because it can stay in effect long after the individuals who supported it have left. And only vegans who stay alive can advocate for that.
|
>Isn't this the entire reason behind ethical veganism? By not eating animals, you are serving their right to exist.
I'm not saying that no vegan believes that, but I have never seen one that says that. I certainly don't say that. We don't serve animals, we just don't harm them. There's a difference between beating and killing people, and serving them. And ideally we would fall into a middle ground of just not interacting with them.
And on the "right to exist" thing, that also isn't really an accepted part of veganism. We shouldn't killing existing beings, but many vegans (possibly even most, hard to say) would be okay with the population of farm animals (cows, pigs, chickens, ect...) to go down significantly or even go extinct because we would stop breeding them. Those that think they should still exist usually think they should return to their wild state, where we would then ignore them and not aid in their survival.
|
5newhu
|
CMV: The most ethically vegan thing to do is to commit suicide because human population impacts animal life more negatively than eating them.
|
Animals, in their current state, can be reproduced infinitely, given the resources at this current state in time.
Vegans make a big ethical stance that eating meat is not ethical because it takes away a life and all life is valuable, yet as the population rises, more animals will be pushed out of their homes as land development takes over. It seems to me that the most ethically vegan thing to do is not only mass castration, but mass suicide, you know, for the environment.
We don't fit into the food chain and there doesn't seem to be any meaning for us in nature. Environmentalists are more about sustaining the Earth for the future rather than saving it - they understand that there is no saving it, human presence will either deplete it entirely of its resources and die off or a disaster will occur and we will all die from it. We might as well do the former before the latter. CMV.
| 1,484,169,496
|
excesshollywoo
|
dcb0nv9
|
dcazsha
| 34
| 4
|
CMV: Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T's crusade to thwart net neutrality is unjustifiably anti-consumer
Just one year ago, it seemed like net neutrality scored a serious win when the FCC redefined ISPs as common carriers and imposed new rules to safeguard the open internet. Fast forward to today, and net neutrality is in dire straits. The Trump administration will likely kill the neutrality rules, Tom Wheeler is going to step down, Ajit Pai will be in charge, and it seems to me like the open internet as we know it will all but evaporate. Many ISPs now engage in zero-rating schemes, creating an unfair advantage by making their own content free. Worsening the situation, the deployment of meaningful competition has been obstructed time and time again, with AT&T and Comcast threatening to sue townships that try to build out their own municipal broadband ISPs or introduce Google Fiber. In short, the internet is going to hell, big ISPs are having a field day, and I feel utterly powerless to stop it. Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil? Can someone please change my view so that I can have at least a glimmer of hope for the next four years?
Edit:
Thanks for the responses. I'm not really asking for an explanation of how companies have a right to make money; I fully understand the concept of fiduciary duty. What I'm asking for is an explanation of how this action might not be as anti-consumer as I believe. Tell me how the actions of these companies could actually BENEFIT consumers, like they've claimed countless times in press releases. Convince me that I should be supportive of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast instead of reviling them
|
> Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil?
No. That's silly (and I think you realize that.) They are for-profit corporations doing their best to make their shareholders money. Just like Tesla, EA, and every other company out there.
That being said, I do not think their campaign against internet regulation is necessarily anti-consumer. Capitalism isn't a zero-sum game, and what is good for Comcast is not necessarily bad for you.
For example, allowing providers to charge extreme bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Google extra could potentially lower costs to consumers, and allowing providers to prioritize data based on it's data type could be transformative - critical tasks could be done remotely, safe from lag spikes, for example.
|
I am in that situation where Comcast is my only provider. The possible solution I can see them pitching is that companies will pay the largest providers in order to be zero-rated for the largest population; so at least in Comcast's situation, they could try to argue it as pro-consumer since, as they are the only provider in many areas, companies will pay them to allow consumers to access their sites without using data.
Also, at least in regards to smartphones, there is a fair amount of competition in that area around which some of the zero-rating policies have formed; in most populated areas, provider coverage is pretty similar.
Again with both of these, though, I think you have to focus on the micro-experience to try to believe a pro-consumer stance. For *some* consumers, having DirectTV/Hulu/Spotify/etc zero-rated will benefit them, and many people who benefit from Spotify being zero-rated on their phone a)don't realize it is against net neutrality and b)don't really care because it allows them to listen to Spotify without worrying about data caps.
|
5ng9q8
|
CMV: Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T's crusade to thwart net neutrality is unjustifiably anti-consumer
|
Just one year ago, it seemed like net neutrality scored a serious win when the FCC redefined ISPs as common carriers and imposed new rules to safeguard the open internet. Fast forward to today, and net neutrality is in dire straits. The Trump administration will likely kill the neutrality rules, Tom Wheeler is going to step down, Ajit Pai will be in charge, and it seems to me like the open internet as we know it will all but evaporate. Many ISPs now engage in zero-rating schemes, creating an unfair advantage by making their own content free. Worsening the situation, the deployment of meaningful competition has been obstructed time and time again, with AT&T and Comcast threatening to sue townships that try to build out their own municipal broadband ISPs or introduce Google Fiber. In short, the internet is going to hell, big ISPs are having a field day, and I feel utterly powerless to stop it. Are companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T truly this….evil? Can someone please change my view so that I can have at least a glimmer of hope for the next four years?
Edit:
Thanks for the responses. I'm not really asking for an explanation of how companies have a right to make money; I fully understand the concept of fiduciary duty. What I'm asking for is an explanation of how this action might not be as anti-consumer as I believe. Tell me how the actions of these companies could actually BENEFIT consumers, like they've claimed countless times in press releases. Convince me that I should be supportive of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast instead of reviling them
| 1,484,183,567
|
f0me
|
dccwtrp
|
dcciyk3
| 3
| 2
|
CMV: Doing a good deed out of spite still makes that person a good person.
Let's say there is a father and son. For whatever reason, the father restricts the son from giving money to charities or to any charitable cause for his entire upbringing. Years later, they have a falling out and the son donates a large sum of money to a charity. He doesn't care about the charity or its recipients one bit and is doing this to spite his father. I believe that that still makes the son a good person as the mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results.
The real world result is that he helped those in need and that alone makes his attitude and mental state during his donation irrelevant. Basically I'm arguing that the son is tangibly helping someone, thus making him a good individual.
|
Is the opposite true?
A woman is being abused by her husband. One day, she smashes his car with a baseball bat 100 times.
She does a bad deed out of spite. Is she a bad person? Her mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results. The real world result is that she destroyed someone else's possession and that alone makes her attitude and mental state during her destruction irrelevant, no?
|
So, your view isn't actually associated with this particular situation. It's going to ultimately boil down to your perception of Outcomes vs Intentions.
Lakes take a different example:
Suppose you live in a nice home, and a desperate burglar has decided to steal from you while you sleep. He's armed.
While you sleep, your appendix is on the verge of rupture and by the time morning rolls around it would have been to late. You are blissfully unaware, because when it kills you it's going to happen all at once very quickly.
The burglar breaks into your home and wakes you up. You summon emergency services on your cellphone and they are en route, but you don't think the burglar is going to give you that much time.
he comes in, he shoots you *intending to kill you* and causes you trauma in your appendix.
The police arrive in the knick of time saving you from the burglar and EMS manages to stabilize you. When you wake up after the removal of the bullet, the doctor goes "If you hadn't been shot tonight you would have died."
Does that make what the burglar did okay? It saved your life but his intent was malicious.
|
5nhdlm
|
CMV: Doing a good deed out of spite still makes that person a good person.
|
Let's say there is a father and son. For whatever reason, the father restricts the son from giving money to charities or to any charitable cause for his entire upbringing. Years later, they have a falling out and the son donates a large sum of money to a charity. He doesn't care about the charity or its recipients one bit and is doing this to spite his father. I believe that that still makes the son a good person as the mental state shouldn't have precedence over the real world results.
The real world result is that he helped those in need and that alone makes his attitude and mental state during his donation irrelevant. Basically I'm arguing that the son is tangibly helping someone, thus making him a good individual.
| 1,484,196,356
|
The69th
|
dcbiugt
|
dcbimj6
| 4
| 2
|
CMV:Cookies and bars don't get enough respect.
Look, I get it. A chocolate souffle is difficult to make well. A layer cake is big and impressive, and can be frosted nicely. Creme Brulee involves a blowtorch, for God's sake. Yeah, there's a lot of great desserts out there.
But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
But a fresh cookie, warm from the oven, preferably that you've been smelling as it baked, soft with a crispy exterior... damn, that's fine.
Other cookies and bars from oatmeal raisin to brownies to 7-layer bars are all subject to the same bias against baked goods that you can pick up and, god forbid, make at home. It's not like we don't still like them, but once you hit puberty, you are supposed to put away your love of cookies. It's just not right to continue this charade.
My view can be changed if you either:
1. Show that cookies and bars get equal respect as the treats found on dessert menus.
2. Explain why, based on pleasure derived, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community. (Yes, I understand that there is more effort in making other desserts, but when choosing a favorite movie I don't consider how many hours it took to make, just how much I like it.)
|
>But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
First of all, this is hilarious, and I love you.
But to answer your question: When people ask you what your favorite ___ is, they are trying to learn some insight about you, spawn some interesting conversation, hear about something new and interesting, etc. The key word is: "Interesting". 'Chocolate chip cookies' as your answer is a very boring answer. At best, the conversation hits a speedbump, and at worst, it seems a little tone deaf to why someone was asking you in the first place.
Hypothesis: If you answer the question in an interesting way, you will not get any sort of negative response.
"Honestly, I've had a lot of great desserts, but I have come to accept that my favorite dessert all time is a chocolate chip cookie. Especially when it's freshly baked. The sound of the oven creaking as it preheats and the sizzle of the butter on the cookie sheet, the smell as it bakes, the anticipation, and finally: the cookie."
"You know that movie, Ratatouille? The climactic scene where the guy takes a bite of the food and they do a dolly zoom out of his eye into his childhood memories? That's how I feel about chocolate chip cookies."
|
>Explain why, based on *pleasure derived*, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community.
I'd argue that "pleasure derived" isn't the only relevant feature when considering "respect." When considering other examples of high culture or art, skill and complexity are crucial components of what makes them art- and the ability to appreciate them is a reflection on your tastes, which is what determines "respect." If you only ever read Dan Brown novels, nobody's going to respect your literary tastes, even if you really like cheap thrillers more than literary fiction. At most, people are going to be completely indifferent because they don't have a sense of literary taste (or snobbiness, if you prefer), or pleased because you share something in common with them. In no case is there going to be respect accorded to your choices.
The same should apply to cooking. Can cookies and bars meet the standards of quality, skill, and complexity? Can they be more like literary fiction, or are they the genre fiction of desserts? I'd argue that, currently, they don't qualify as a taste worth respecting. Not necessarily because cookies and bars can't be made in such a way that they're haute cuisine, but because they just currently aren't. I don't know whether or not cookies and bars could be- I'm not a chef- but if every video game was Call of Duty, no video games would be art, even when there are definitely games deserving of that label.
|
5nkl7t
|
CMV:Cookies and bars don't get enough respect.
|
Look, I get it. A chocolate souffle is difficult to make well. A layer cake is big and impressive, and can be frosted nicely. Creme Brulee involves a blowtorch, for God's sake. Yeah, there's a lot of great desserts out there.
But if someone asks what your favorite dessert is and you answer "chocolate chip cookies" instead of "flourless bittersweet chocolate torte with raspberry puree and a dollop of creme anglaise" you come across as someone who thinks Olive Garden is fine dining (even WITH the bottomless salad).
But a fresh cookie, warm from the oven, preferably that you've been smelling as it baked, soft with a crispy exterior... damn, that's fine.
Other cookies and bars from oatmeal raisin to brownies to 7-layer bars are all subject to the same bias against baked goods that you can pick up and, god forbid, make at home. It's not like we don't still like them, but once you hit puberty, you are supposed to put away your love of cookies. It's just not right to continue this charade.
My view can be changed if you either:
1. Show that cookies and bars get equal respect as the treats found on dessert menus.
2. Explain why, based on pleasure derived, other desserts deserve their loftier perch in the gastronomic community. (Yes, I understand that there is more effort in making other desserts, but when choosing a favorite movie I don't consider how many hours it took to make, just how much I like it.)
| 1,484,241,423
|
garnteller
|
dccd0j0
|
dccbje0
| 181
| 4
|
CMV: When children display low intelligence, we should be training them to enter low-income jobs, not preparing them for college like everyone else.
This is for the USA in particular. Fact is, there are too many graduates, and a lot jobs we need don't take graduates. If a kid is three grades behind in reading or refuses to do schoolwork or whatever, yeah they should still get the three R's, but the focus should be things like woodshop, welding, plumbing, circuits, motors, cooking, etc. And for the lowest levels, we should be preparing them for factories, fast food, and retail. My city already does this. For the mentally handicapped, ages 18-21, we train them to get a job and function in society. And it's a hugely successful program.
Not every student needs to learn biology, chemistry, US history, Shakespeare, etc. They weren't going to remember it anyway. Of course there's value in those things, but the **opportunity cost** of not teaching the practical subjects is much higher.
This kind of separation should definitely happen in high school, but maybe even start in middle or late elementary. If we net a student who ends up smart, then they will be one of the best d*** practical engineers of their generation, and the fact that we didn't teach them precalculus won't stop them from learning it if it's needed.
Edit: I found a good article showcasing what I'm talking about in the real world [here](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/02/the-return-of-vocational-high-schools-more-options-or-the-kiss-of-death).
Edit: Fine. Don't base it off intelligence. Base it off some rubric of chronic underperformance, and the recommendation of many, many teachers. Those students who can't easily succeed in traditional school I think could find better success in the vocations, whether it meshes better with their personality or interests or abilities or whatever. It's not so much because they are stupid (be that as it may), but moreso that they are different. In the reverse, I am sure some students would do poorly in the vocational track, but okay in the college track.
|
College professor here: intelligence is not the ultimate factor in success. I have had many high intelligence students fail my classes because they were too damn lazy or irresponsible to get their shit done. On the other hand, I've had many lower intelligence students he successful because they had a strong work ethic and worked hard to get their shit taken care of.
If given the choice, I would take the second student 10 times out of 10.
|
Seeems like it would just pigeonhole students into miserable futures, regardless of their actual capabilities.
I'm a high school AND college drop out that works as an analyst at a bank making a lot of money, even more so for a mid 20 year old. I outright reject the notion that because I had shitty grades I am unable to become a white collar professional.
|
5nnnrz
|
CMV: When children display low intelligence, we should be training them to enter low-income jobs, not preparing them for college like everyone else.
|
This is for the USA in particular. Fact is, there are too many graduates, and a lot jobs we need don't take graduates. If a kid is three grades behind in reading or refuses to do schoolwork or whatever, yeah they should still get the three R's, but the focus should be things like woodshop, welding, plumbing, circuits, motors, cooking, etc. And for the lowest levels, we should be preparing them for factories, fast food, and retail. My city already does this. For the mentally handicapped, ages 18-21, we train them to get a job and function in society. And it's a hugely successful program.
Not every student needs to learn biology, chemistry, US history, Shakespeare, etc. They weren't going to remember it anyway. Of course there's value in those things, but the **opportunity cost** of not teaching the practical subjects is much higher.
This kind of separation should definitely happen in high school, but maybe even start in middle or late elementary. If we net a student who ends up smart, then they will be one of the best d*** practical engineers of their generation, and the fact that we didn't teach them precalculus won't stop them from learning it if it's needed.
Edit: I found a good article showcasing what I'm talking about in the real world [here](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/02/the-return-of-vocational-high-schools-more-options-or-the-kiss-of-death).
Edit: Fine. Don't base it off intelligence. Base it off some rubric of chronic underperformance, and the recommendation of many, many teachers. Those students who can't easily succeed in traditional school I think could find better success in the vocations, whether it meshes better with their personality or interests or abilities or whatever. It's not so much because they are stupid (be that as it may), but moreso that they are different. In the reverse, I am sure some students would do poorly in the vocational track, but okay in the college track.
| 1,484,272,198
|
Nuclear_rabbit
|
dccyr54
|
dccyi19
| 1,498
| 259
|
CMV: As a male living in the USA, my feelings and struggles do not matter to society here.
I am friends with a lot of feminists. I do not have an issue with people disagreeing with him. However, I am a very opinionated person myself and I engage these people on facebook when I disagree with what they are saying. For example, today (and the inspiration for this post) a friend of mine posted a screenshot of a conversation which boiled down to this:
Women are expected to change for men. If a man wants kids and a woman doesn't, the woman is expected to have kids. Man wants X, woman wants Y, man gets X.
I pointed out that men go through this too. I pointed out other inequalities that men experience. I was disregarded as an asshole, as someone who didn't have sympathy for my friend who went through this experience, and as someone who just wanted to hurt people to get his point across.
It didn't matter to her that I felt like my sex was being marginalized by petty nonsense - I pointed out that men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. I pointed out that men are 3 times more likely to be assaulted in public. I pointed out that men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, and I pointed out that male domestic abuse victims are not taken seriously. I even provided studies and sources for all of these statistics. None of that mattered. I was an asshole for doing exactly the same thing she did: pointing out an experience that my sex has to go through. Her post was celebrated, my rebuttal was admonished.
My feelings didn't matter, and they never have. That was just one example. It doesn't matter to her, or to society at large that these inequalities against men exist. There are no mens-rights-activists in office, or if there are, they are making their activism public. Yet feminism is still regarded as a proud label and no woman in office would dare deny being a feminist.
CMV.
|
A big problem with these discussions is that we only have your second hand account of what went down. Obviously you are more charitable to your side, and obviously if someone disagreed with you and you maintain disagreement there is a chance you can't represent their objection fairly.
Going on your representation of events only, I think your timing is the issue. Person A posting about a subject is not necessarily looking for a debate about some other related issue. Yeah, you may be right that men also go through something similar, but by bringing it up at that time you're diminishing the feelings and struggles of another, exactly what you find loathsome. The diminishment happens in seeing this as a challenge. Does the fact that men are expected to change XYZ really do anything to counter that women are expected to change XYZ?
By all means, talk about those things. Now imagine you make a post about how bad the male suicide rate is and how you want to help and I barge in as a feminist and say "well actually women get depressed too". It's not helpful, and you are well within your rights to tell me off for trying to derail.
Your last paragraph makes this seem like an argument of MRA vs. Feminism, which is not incompatible. As anti-feminists are gleeful to point out, only 23% of women are feminists. This is hardly a conspiracy.
|
Some of these ideas and concerns are kind of our responsibility.
Men do far more violent crimes then women.
So sure, we are the victims of violent crime, but we also do more of it.
Men are far less likely to seek out counseling services that are available. This is still this tough guy narrative that lots of men buy into.
There is still the idea that if men show certain emotions they are weak and this is usually maintained by other men.
If a man is feeling suicidal and doesn't seek out resources that are available that's different idea than the one that was expressed in your FB example.
The man isn't getting his opinion overruled.
|
5nnsvs
|
CMV: As a male living in the USA, my feelings and struggles do not matter to society here.
|
I am friends with a lot of feminists. I do not have an issue with people disagreeing with him. However, I am a very opinionated person myself and I engage these people on facebook when I disagree with what they are saying. For example, today (and the inspiration for this post) a friend of mine posted a screenshot of a conversation which boiled down to this:
Women are expected to change for men. If a man wants kids and a woman doesn't, the woman is expected to have kids. Man wants X, woman wants Y, man gets X.
I pointed out that men go through this too. I pointed out other inequalities that men experience. I was disregarded as an asshole, as someone who didn't have sympathy for my friend who went through this experience, and as someone who just wanted to hurt people to get his point across.
It didn't matter to her that I felt like my sex was being marginalized by petty nonsense - I pointed out that men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. I pointed out that men are 3 times more likely to be assaulted in public. I pointed out that men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, and I pointed out that male domestic abuse victims are not taken seriously. I even provided studies and sources for all of these statistics. None of that mattered. I was an asshole for doing exactly the same thing she did: pointing out an experience that my sex has to go through. Her post was celebrated, my rebuttal was admonished.
My feelings didn't matter, and they never have. That was just one example. It doesn't matter to her, or to society at large that these inequalities against men exist. There are no mens-rights-activists in office, or if there are, they are making their activism public. Yet feminism is still regarded as a proud label and no woman in office would dare deny being a feminist.
CMV.
| 1,484,273,756
|
[deleted]
|
dccy9fr
|
dccxwez
| 31
| 27
|
CMV: A World Government of Some Form Would Solve Most Problems We Face Today.
What Worldwide Problems do we face today?
War/Large Scale Conflict
Most wars and large scale conflicts today are not between countries, but from within, like insurgent groups or militant religious organizations. This is a problem because it places pressure on the host government's resources, diverts assets from assisting people in need, and destabilizes entire nations, which leads to greater pressures on the international community to step in(Afghanistan Invasion) or to send aid.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
These two things are together because they are intrinsically linked. A person's inability to find money or other equivalent prevents him from buying food. He is less able to work, more often hungry, more likely to become criminal, and generally not contributing to a country's overall well-being.
National Disagreements
The South China Sea Island dispute over who owns the islands in the South China Sea(hence the name) is one of several examples of peaceful(mostly) ongoing land disputes in the world. This is problematic because any provocative action taken here could destabilize the region, which is already not super balanced. While there is no present indication of this happening, the mere existence of a dispute suggests that sparks could fly eventually.
How would A World Government solve these problems?
War/Large Scale Conflict
A World Government can mobilize a much larger, more comprehensive, effective fighting force to deal with groups that wish to cause others harm. The government's access to the world's resources makes this task easy. What would be a major concern is governance and control of this large force, as each former nation would surely hold old loyalties.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. it is more about distribution. With a World Government, an agency can be created that subsidizes the cost of procuring an distributing food to places in need. But that is treating the symptoms, not the disease(strong language, but it fits the analogy). How a world government treats poverty is very difficult, because there really isn't a single solution. There needs to be large scale investment in infrastructure and security in parts of the world that do not have sufficient self-sustaining governments. How the world government would do this varies. Providing subsidies only goes so far. A world government would mostly be reliant on the charity of it's citizens to ensure this. Creation of low income jobs, like factory repetitive tasks, is no longer a viable option because of mechanized automation. So the first investment that a world government needs to do is in education. An investment in education is truly an investment in the future of that area.
National Disagreements
Depending on the circumstances of the creation of this world government, there may be some implementations more successful and others not so. The most successful implementations take into account the wealth of each nation, and the power being distributed according both to wealth and population(perhaps a bicameral legislature, like the American Congress)(keep the rich happy, so they don't revolt). This will probably be the hardest, as giving up sovereignty is something that is not taken to lightly.
How would a World Government work?
I propose a system similar to the American system.
An Executive branch, led by perhaps a council of persons(one is none, two is one, etc). This is to ensure that each geographic area gets some representation.
Division by existing geographic boundaries, taking into consideration culture and political past. These divisions would serve as districts from which Representatives would be sent to a Legislative branch. Bicameral, perhaps tricameral, to divide the powers further, because centering power is dangerous, especially on a large scale.
A judicial system, which would mostly serve similarly to the American system. Of course, over time there would be modifications.
The stickiest point is what kind of binding agreement to have. A constitution is to inflexible. Instead, have the legislature make all of the rulings, and have the center of power in the legislature instead of the executive branch to ensure dilution of power. Appeals of actions taken by the legislature can be heard by the judiciary.
The military portion of governance would be controlled by the executive and legislative branch jointly. This is to ensure that no one man/group of men can control the military power.
Ensuring checks and balances and a fair and transparent system will be difficult. To do this, I propose the creation of a fourth branch of government, an Ethics branch, if you please. This branch would have wide-reaching powers to regulate which powers each portion of government possess, the exception being itself. The ethics branch would be led by another representatively elected body, smaller than the Legislature, but large and powerful enough to provide a legal defense against a coup(perhaps not a military one).
I'm open to suggestions.
|
> War/Large Scale Conflict
The solution you propose already exists. It's called the USA
The USA has many times over the pwoer to destroy civilization as we know. They can fight indefinitely against the whole world if necessary. You really don't get any more powerhouse than that
Problem is, that's all useless. Modern modern warfare is about what you might call terrorism. If your proposal was adopted and a full power governemnt took over, anyone who opposes it would be even more extreme, they would literally be banned from Earth itself instead of just a country or culture
>Poverty/Food Insecurity
You're absolutely right we have much more than we need. However, that's not the issue. The issue is that people, real people, relevant people, think that it's fine for some to be miserable while others are filthy rich. If you think like that, distributing wealth is straight up bad and this segment of society isn't irrelevant, they would combat this idea with all their mighty
These are two examples that just bring to attention the real problem with a unique government: people don't agree. There's no thing as "right" or "correct". Different perspectives go as deep as the conception of life itself. You simply cannot bring some people together because they disagree on fundamental concepts
|
I agree in the long run, but, for lack of a better description, the world isn't ready for this yet. There's two major roadblocks, both of which bring too much division to people for this to be possible. They are (keep in mind I'm posting with a Western mindset):
1) Organized religion needs to die or reach a point of toleration. Religion divides people and it often has heavy impact on laws. You simply can't mixed a fucked up country like Saudi Arabia with a Western country. And the religious (specifically in lots of Middle Eastern countries) would push back if they were forced into an essentially secular government. It wouldn't take.
2) Nationalism needs to die or be nothing more arbitrary than a Bostonian bragging about how Irish they are. Very few people would be willing to join a global government, even if it had little impact on their lives. Look at a place like the US, states like Texas talk about leaving. In Canada, Quebec talks about leaving. In the UK, Scotland talks about leaving. And then you consider national pride is strong in most countries (except maybe some of Africa's arbitrarily formed countries). Not only that, but you'd be putting enemies/rivals together. I can guarantee you that most Chinese wouldn't want to be associated with the Japanese that way (and vice versa). Once again, it wouldn't take, even if local customs are protected as much as they can be.
|
5noo5f
|
CMV: A World Government of Some Form Would Solve Most Problems We Face Today.
|
What Worldwide Problems do we face today?
War/Large Scale Conflict
Most wars and large scale conflicts today are not between countries, but from within, like insurgent groups or militant religious organizations. This is a problem because it places pressure on the host government's resources, diverts assets from assisting people in need, and destabilizes entire nations, which leads to greater pressures on the international community to step in(Afghanistan Invasion) or to send aid.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
These two things are together because they are intrinsically linked. A person's inability to find money or other equivalent prevents him from buying food. He is less able to work, more often hungry, more likely to become criminal, and generally not contributing to a country's overall well-being.
National Disagreements
The South China Sea Island dispute over who owns the islands in the South China Sea(hence the name) is one of several examples of peaceful(mostly) ongoing land disputes in the world. This is problematic because any provocative action taken here could destabilize the region, which is already not super balanced. While there is no present indication of this happening, the mere existence of a dispute suggests that sparks could fly eventually.
How would A World Government solve these problems?
War/Large Scale Conflict
A World Government can mobilize a much larger, more comprehensive, effective fighting force to deal with groups that wish to cause others harm. The government's access to the world's resources makes this task easy. What would be a major concern is governance and control of this large force, as each former nation would surely hold old loyalties.
Poverty/Food Insecurity
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. it is more about distribution. With a World Government, an agency can be created that subsidizes the cost of procuring an distributing food to places in need. But that is treating the symptoms, not the disease(strong language, but it fits the analogy). How a world government treats poverty is very difficult, because there really isn't a single solution. There needs to be large scale investment in infrastructure and security in parts of the world that do not have sufficient self-sustaining governments. How the world government would do this varies. Providing subsidies only goes so far. A world government would mostly be reliant on the charity of it's citizens to ensure this. Creation of low income jobs, like factory repetitive tasks, is no longer a viable option because of mechanized automation. So the first investment that a world government needs to do is in education. An investment in education is truly an investment in the future of that area.
National Disagreements
Depending on the circumstances of the creation of this world government, there may be some implementations more successful and others not so. The most successful implementations take into account the wealth of each nation, and the power being distributed according both to wealth and population(perhaps a bicameral legislature, like the American Congress)(keep the rich happy, so they don't revolt). This will probably be the hardest, as giving up sovereignty is something that is not taken to lightly.
How would a World Government work?
I propose a system similar to the American system.
An Executive branch, led by perhaps a council of persons(one is none, two is one, etc). This is to ensure that each geographic area gets some representation.
Division by existing geographic boundaries, taking into consideration culture and political past. These divisions would serve as districts from which Representatives would be sent to a Legislative branch. Bicameral, perhaps tricameral, to divide the powers further, because centering power is dangerous, especially on a large scale.
A judicial system, which would mostly serve similarly to the American system. Of course, over time there would be modifications.
The stickiest point is what kind of binding agreement to have. A constitution is to inflexible. Instead, have the legislature make all of the rulings, and have the center of power in the legislature instead of the executive branch to ensure dilution of power. Appeals of actions taken by the legislature can be heard by the judiciary.
The military portion of governance would be controlled by the executive and legislative branch jointly. This is to ensure that no one man/group of men can control the military power.
Ensuring checks and balances and a fair and transparent system will be difficult. To do this, I propose the creation of a fourth branch of government, an Ethics branch, if you please. This branch would have wide-reaching powers to regulate which powers each portion of government possess, the exception being itself. The ethics branch would be led by another representatively elected body, smaller than the Legislature, but large and powerful enough to provide a legal defense against a coup(perhaps not a military one).
I'm open to suggestions.
| 1,484,283,937
|
themaskedserpent
|
dcdft4p
|
dcd9d4w
| 3
| 1
|
CMV: I believe the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time
It should of course be our end goal to become a totally tolerant, empathetic, *kind* and forgiving society - Not a brutal one. A society which does not discriminate or harbour prejudice; an all encompassing hot pot which fights for the good of its people no matter their age, gender, race or creed.
In spite of this, I find myself asking - is it morally reprehensible to think that the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time?
As you may have guessed this is in regard to terrorism.
Objectively, closing off our borders entirely to an entire section of humanity is not preferred. But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the *realities* of this?
All muslims already living in the country have every right to stay - and so they should. Once they set foot on our soil they are our brothers and sisters. But in regard to the ethics of setting more/full on restrictive access on Islamic immigration as an attempt at subduing further possible attacks - is it wrong?
|
> But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the realities of this?
Yes, it's absurd. You'd have to interrogate people about their belief system. Would a terrorist lie about being a Muslim if it meant getting access to a target? Absolutely.
Second, it is counterproductive. It only *helps* us to accept people running from ISIS. It makes us look like the good guys, and it reduces who they can radicalize. If we banned Muslims from entering the US, it would only add fuel for propaganda. They'd grow in numbers and danger.
|
Such laws can only begin to be justified if you can show a clear benefit to the proposal (and even then there are still ethical concerns), and I don't believe you can do that here.
Even if most terrorism deaths are at the hands of Islamic terrorists, the fact remains that it's an incredibly small number of Islamic terrorists. Clamping down on immigration would work if something like 1 in 3 Muslims was a threat, but they aren't. You're talking about isolated individuals who slip through the cracks (and in the process evade several existing laws), and I don't believe you can show that such a crackdown on immigration would do anything to stop those people. They have already shown a clear willingness to circumvent existing measures meant to stop them, so why should immigration be any different?
Meanwhile, in exchange for that lack of any benefit, you've alienated thousands of completely innocent people who've done nothing more to arouse suspicion than you or I have.
|
5nqtw0
|
CMV: I believe the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time
|
It should of course be our end goal to become a totally tolerant, empathetic, *kind* and forgiving society - Not a brutal one. A society which does not discriminate or harbour prejudice; an all encompassing hot pot which fights for the good of its people no matter their age, gender, race or creed.
In spite of this, I find myself asking - is it morally reprehensible to think that the laws of our time should reflect the state of our time?
As you may have guessed this is in regard to terrorism.
Objectively, closing off our borders entirely to an entire section of humanity is not preferred. But if 99% of deaths from terrorism fall into the hands of Islamic perpetrators; is it so absurd to think our laws should adapt and change to better suit the *realities* of this?
All muslims already living in the country have every right to stay - and so they should. Once they set foot on our soil they are our brothers and sisters. But in regard to the ethics of setting more/full on restrictive access on Islamic immigration as an attempt at subduing further possible attacks - is it wrong?
| 1,484,317,028
|
lcPASCAL-
|
dcdod7n
|
dcdo4l4
| 12
| 2
|
CMV: English speakers should stop using either "affect" or "effect".
I'm not an English major. I'm just a lifetime English speaker who's wasted too much time thinking "wait, do I use 'effect' or 'affect' here?" and I realized this morning that I can't think of a good reason for them both to exist.
I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context. "Buffalo" can be a city or an animal and one doesn't need the A changed to an E.
The two words are similar enough that I see no point to having both. I think one word would suffice and cut down on incorrect usage.
Obviously, the English Language Overlords aren't going to see this post and decree the word "affect" stricken from the records. But, I am curious if anyone can tell me why it's a good idea for both of these words to exist.
|
Cause and *effect*. That snapchat filter creates a weird *effect*. How can we *effect* change.
Does this *affect* me? She presented a flattened *affect.* This leads to things like in jest, she *affected* a mocking tone.
Your basic premise isn't necessarily one I disagree with, except I would say the final two examples above argue for retention of affect. Affect as a noun is a specialised psychological term, as such I don't see them as similar enough to merge into a single weird. If we did away with affect, I can't imagine how one would fold all that into effect. Likewise, if we did away with effect in favour affect, wouldn't that make movie magic into "special affects"? That would be super weird.
Let's try it, replacing affect with effect:
* The law of cause and effect.
* This snapchat filter creates a weird effect: my face looks thinner.
* How can I best effect change so my face looks thinner without the filter?
* I know where you're coming from, but I can't help but think how it effects me and our relationship more broadly. You know I'm prone to jealous outbursts, and if you're thinner, it'll only get worse.
* One of the hallmarks of schizophrenia is a flattened effect, whereas heightened effect suggests mania, a possible indicator of bipolar disorder.
* When I effect a lack of interest in your weight loss plans, somehow it makes things even worse.
For me, the last two are problematic. Flattened or heightened effect almost seem to refer to physical characteristics instead of facial appearance, attitude, and responsiveness. The final one could mean "when I create a lack of interest" or "when I pretend a lack of interest."
I'm sure someone else could come up with better examples where context doesn't actually make the meaning entirely clear.
|
First off, the two words have different pronunciations as well; AHH-fect v.s. EE-fect. They're different words with different pronunciations and different meanings. But for purposes of argument, let's call them homophones.
>I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context.
Okay, so are you in favor of all other homophones being congealed into the same word? Some examples;
* to/two/too
* there/their/they're
* pray/prey
* ad/add
* aunt/ant
* blew/blue
* cell/sell
* hour/our
And so on. If you're not in favor of those words being turned into homonyms, then why? What differentiates the affect/effect pair from all of the others?
|
5nrv3a
|
CMV: English speakers should stop using either "affect" or "effect".
|
I'm not an English major. I'm just a lifetime English speaker who's wasted too much time thinking "wait, do I use 'effect' or 'affect' here?" and I realized this morning that I can't think of a good reason for them both to exist.
I'm aware that the two words, "affect" and "effect" have differing definitions, but that doesn't matter. The English language has plenty of words that have multiple meanings discerned from context. "Buffalo" can be a city or an animal and one doesn't need the A changed to an E.
The two words are similar enough that I see no point to having both. I think one word would suffice and cut down on incorrect usage.
Obviously, the English Language Overlords aren't going to see this post and decree the word "affect" stricken from the records. But, I am curious if anyone can tell me why it's a good idea for both of these words to exist.
| 1,484,327,764
|
Jencaasi
|
dcdu27x
|
dcdt0hp
| 17
| 11
|
CMV: You should not be required to visit a primary health care provider for an acute problem.
I have a ruptured eardrum and I had to wait 3 days for an appointment with the VA primary care doctor, who I knew would have to give me a referral to ENT. Sure enough, she said I had a ruptured eardrum and she would refer to me to ENT, which I am now waiting 3 weeks to see. All the while still having no relief of symptoms.
Primary care should be for checkups, preventive care, and health planning. Making PCP's "gatekeepers" for acute issues that need to be quickly resolved by specialists is a waste of time. If a patient can describe an issue over the phone that is obviously going to be a referral, then why make them visit the PCP to confirm that? Over the phone I could have said, "significant loss in hearing, blood tinged discharge coming from ear, occurred while blowing my nose" and they could have referred me immediately based off that description.
|
Being able to immediately schedule an appointment with a specialist would have saved you at most 3 days in the situation you described. They would not have been able to get you in immediately as there is still a large demand for their services. If people were allowed to just schedule things with them immediately it could lead to an even longer wait. While with your case your symptoms make it seem likely that you do have a ruptured eardrum, there's always the small chance that it's not. By seeing a primary care doctor first they are able to make sure that you are seeing the right person and that the specialist isn't getting people who have the actual condition they think they have. That could be the difference between a 3 week wait and a 4 or 5 week wait since allowing patients to immediately schedule with the specialist doesn't change how many people the specialist can actually see in a week.
|
Why don't you just go to the emergency room?
|
5nrxf8
|
CMV: You should not be required to visit a primary health care provider for an acute problem.
|
I have a ruptured eardrum and I had to wait 3 days for an appointment with the VA primary care doctor, who I knew would have to give me a referral to ENT. Sure enough, she said I had a ruptured eardrum and she would refer to me to ENT, which I am now waiting 3 weeks to see. All the while still having no relief of symptoms.
Primary care should be for checkups, preventive care, and health planning. Making PCP's "gatekeepers" for acute issues that need to be quickly resolved by specialists is a waste of time. If a patient can describe an issue over the phone that is obviously going to be a referral, then why make them visit the PCP to confirm that? Over the phone I could have said, "significant loss in hearing, blood tinged discharge coming from ear, occurred while blowing my nose" and they could have referred me immediately based off that description.
| 1,484,328,377
|
NAPALM_SON
|
dcdy2mt
|
dcdxua4
| 30
| 4
|
CMV: Nintendo disappointed massively with their Nintendo Switch Direct yesterday, and proved that they don't know how to appeal to their audience
Before I go into what Nintendo did wrong yesterday, here are some of the positives:
* The Switch will have a March 3rd release date
* Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild looks fantastic and will be a launch title
* Super Mario Odyssey looks like a fresh new take on the Mario franchise (although it's not coming till Holiday 2017)
* The Switch will not be region-locked
* 8-person local multiplayer
* HD rumble and motion sensing
And now here's the bad:
* Nothing about eSports. Are you kidding me Nintendo? It's 2017. eSports is larger than ever. Many teams and companies (Echo Fox, the Miami Heat, etc.) are jumping on the opportunity. It's time for Nintendo to stop ignoring its large and expanding competitive communities like Smash
* Nothing about virtual console. This pains me especially as a Melee player, but I know many others feel the same way. Nintendo could make SO MUCH money off of virtual console. I know I will personally buy the Switch if there is VC. But based on what I saw at the Direct? No way. There are so many people who want to be able to play remastered versions of GameCube games like Super Smash Bros. Melee, Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. It's beyond idiotic that Nintendo isn't doing this
* No Smash 5. Smash Bros. is by far one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, so why wouldn't they at least announce it? It would likely make the difference between some people buying and not buying the Switch.
* Splatoon 2, the sequel nobody wanted but everyone knew was coming
* Paid online service. Nintendo has historically had really shitty online service, and now we'll have to pay for it? Ridiculous.
* No Pokemon. There were rumors about a full Pokemon game coming to the Switch, but those appear to be untrue. Again, a huge waste of an opportunity.
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead of Mario Kart 9
* No Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kirby, etc.
* The controllers are freaking tiny. It's going to be very easy to lose them.
There are probably some more that I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. While there were some pros to the presentation, the cons far outweigh them. Nintendo is missing some GOLDEN opportunities. It seems like they just want to appeal to little kids, which is not their entire audience by any means. People call the Wii U a failure? Well the Switch is going to do even worse based on what we've seen so far. For $300 there's no way I'm buying it, and I don't think others will either.
|
> Servers take money to run. I think the fact that they're taking those steps is a good sign.
That's fair, but I don't see how consumers could believe in it without Nintendo's track record.
>And why is the free (well, "bonus") games feature shitty?
Because Games with Gold and PSN offer you a couple free games for month that you get to keep for ever. On the other hand, the Switch version gives you one game per month but it disappears at the end of the month and you don't get to keep it unless you buy it.
>There's also something to be said for the fact that they don't force out a new sequel too often too, just for the sake of having things on the console.
That makes enough sense, but says nothing of the other games people were expecting.
>Remember a while ago when people were extremely upset that they didn't announce a Majora's Mask remake that one E3 after perceived "hints"? Then it was announced just a few months later?
No but from what I can find, that was 4 years ago, and 2 years after the release of the 3DS. We are 2 months from the Switch launch and I still feel as if Nintendo could have generated hype much better.
>Also, Overwatch released eight months ago on the PC, PS4, and xbone. That's a lot more accessible. Splatoon is a year older, and only on the Wii U. Not really a fair comparison.
I mean Overwatch isn't accessible to everyone. It requires at least decent/good computer specs, which many don't have. Also, consider how many people were talking about Splatoon 8 months after release. Nobody.
|
> No but it's generally not considered to be smart business to lose money.
Unless it functions as a loss leader. But that's not really the point. Perhaps the profit isn't enough to be worth it for Nintendo, for example.
> Yeah and I think this was a huge mistake.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
> I don't see why they can't appeal to both?
Marketing basically always has to target a segment of the population, especially in terms of branding. That's why tons of products target men **or** women, video games (ironically) an example of this. Why not appeal to both markets and increase the market? Because catering to a female audience means you lose the make one. Halfassing two marketing or branding campaigns means you lose relative to wholeassing one.
> I agree but I don't see how this challenges my view.
Because it's a potential cost to the new market you think they should go after. If they don't feel comfortable changing as much, they won't innovate as much. This is fine if you only care about the competitive market, because not changing much will keep them, but it harms sales elsewhere if your game becomes stale. And innovation in games is something Nintendo takes super seriously.
> But that's not why Nintendo didn't support competitive Melee. It was because Sakurai (the creator of Smash) thought it would remain a very tiny, niche community of basement-dwellers. This is no longer the case. I think the community would appreciate even a little outreach, even if it doesn't go perfectly.
This is largely irrelevant to my point. Why they initially didn't support it has no bearing as to why they don't support it now.
> Which competitive markets are you referring to? If you mean League, CS:GO and Overwatch, aren't they already sponsored by the creator companies?
I don't understand your question on relation to my statement. Who Nintendo targets affects everything from game design to console design and controller setup. They aren't like any of the companies you listed with large, frequent, competitive sponsorships.
|
5nt0o8
|
CMV: Nintendo disappointed massively with their Nintendo Switch Direct yesterday, and proved that they don't know how to appeal to their audience
|
Before I go into what Nintendo did wrong yesterday, here are some of the positives:
* The Switch will have a March 3rd release date
* Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild looks fantastic and will be a launch title
* Super Mario Odyssey looks like a fresh new take on the Mario franchise (although it's not coming till Holiday 2017)
* The Switch will not be region-locked
* 8-person local multiplayer
* HD rumble and motion sensing
And now here's the bad:
* Nothing about eSports. Are you kidding me Nintendo? It's 2017. eSports is larger than ever. Many teams and companies (Echo Fox, the Miami Heat, etc.) are jumping on the opportunity. It's time for Nintendo to stop ignoring its large and expanding competitive communities like Smash
* Nothing about virtual console. This pains me especially as a Melee player, but I know many others feel the same way. Nintendo could make SO MUCH money off of virtual console. I know I will personally buy the Switch if there is VC. But based on what I saw at the Direct? No way. There are so many people who want to be able to play remastered versions of GameCube games like Super Smash Bros. Melee, Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. It's beyond idiotic that Nintendo isn't doing this
* No Smash 5. Smash Bros. is by far one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, so why wouldn't they at least announce it? It would likely make the difference between some people buying and not buying the Switch.
* Splatoon 2, the sequel nobody wanted but everyone knew was coming
* Paid online service. Nintendo has historically had really shitty online service, and now we'll have to pay for it? Ridiculous.
* No Pokemon. There were rumors about a full Pokemon game coming to the Switch, but those appear to be untrue. Again, a huge waste of an opportunity.
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead of Mario Kart 9
* No Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kirby, etc.
* The controllers are freaking tiny. It's going to be very easy to lose them.
There are probably some more that I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. While there were some pros to the presentation, the cons far outweigh them. Nintendo is missing some GOLDEN opportunities. It seems like they just want to appeal to little kids, which is not their entire audience by any means. People call the Wii U a failure? Well the Switch is going to do even worse based on what we've seen so far. For $300 there's no way I'm buying it, and I don't think others will either.
| 1,484,338,967
|
ihatedogs2
|
dceip1b
|
dceer6p
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: I can't see why I should have to respect Christianity.
First of all, I want to make a distinction. I am not talking about Christians, I am talking about Christianity as religion. I am ok with Christians, not with Christianity. The reason for the distinction is because I know people will say "but some Christians support gays rights" yes, that's absolutely, but this support come from cherry picking the Bible.
Anyways, to the point. I am a person from the LGBT community. Christianity is not a religion that is respectful of LGBT people at all. I don't think I owe any respect to Christianity (or any religion) that has hate messages against LGBT people. The reason behind that is simple: It hates me. It almost treat me like less than a human being. I mean, why should I respect this:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ... neither fornicators ... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13"
You see... Christianity and the Bible hates me. Not only for being bisexual, but for being an unbeliever, too. How and why should I have to respect this bigotry and backwardness? Those aren't the only ones hateful and violent messages, but for this CMV, I will let at that.
Also, there's that too: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Essentially, the main reason why I have this view is because it doesn't makes sense to respect an ideology that doesn't respect me. It hates me. I can't really call it a good religion.
|
You shouldn't have to respect the rather twisted and distorted version of Christianity, and Christianity's perceptions of the Quiltbag community that you've created here.
But in terms of the actual Christianity, let's delve deeper.
First, there is nothing anywhere in the Bible about hating anyone because of sins. The reason, well it would be rather impractical and dumb. The Bible repeatedly says that everyone has sinned. That no one is righteous, not one. So your justification to argue that Christianity hates you goes right out the window.
Your reference to the death penalty and the law misses the point. Jesus has come to fufil the law, IE to conclude it's ultimate purpose. To give humanity the potential of being viewed as righteous in the eyes of God. We can't do that ourselves, so we needed Jesus to do it for us.
The best example of this is with Jesus's attitude towards the adulterous woman. The people with the stones were right, under the law. If she was an adulterer, she should have been stoned. But Jesus's response was "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Thereby undermining the idea that Jesus supported the law's aspects on things like capital punishment. Jesus didn't undermine the law in the sense of what it said was wrong, since he told the woman to go away from her sin. What he did was make it possible for her to avoid the punishment, thanks to forgiveness.
Second, you argue that Christianity is arguing you should be sent to hell because you're bisexual and unbeliever. The point Christianity makes is that, without God's intervention, we should all be sent to hell because of sin. To be clear, that's not because God hates us, but because he hates what we have done, and because heaven is entirely pure and without sin, nothing impure can go there. Hell isn't about hatred, it's about justice. And Christianity is about release from the ultimate consequence of justice thanks to compassion.
You should respect that because the internal logic is flawless. Nothing impure can enter a realm that is pure without making the realm impure. That's logical. Since we can't make ourselves pure, we needed someone else's help to do it for us. It seems only fair that the same person giving that option is the person who demands purity in the first place.
|
I think you're not making the distinction between the people who blindly follow Christianity and the people who worship. There will always be some reason or another why a group is persecuted. You have to be able to make the distinction that they can't, that you can not attribute the movement as a whole to a person that believes in it.
Another way to say this is that you can be seen as "cherry picking" the LGBT movement. There are some in the LGBT community that would like to tear down religion as an institution. Maybe you do maybe you do not.
Guess my point is that people will disrespect an ideology if they are not open minded. Yes you have no reason to respect the ideology of Christianity as literally stated in the bible, while they have no reason to respect your ideology. It's best for everyone if instead of disrespecting each other's ideologies we respect that we came from different backgrounds and accept that.
|
5nwi2s
|
CMV: I can't see why I should have to respect Christianity.
|
First of all, I want to make a distinction. I am not talking about Christians, I am talking about Christianity as religion. I am ok with Christians, not with Christianity. The reason for the distinction is because I know people will say "but some Christians support gays rights" yes, that's absolutely, but this support come from cherry picking the Bible.
Anyways, to the point. I am a person from the LGBT community. Christianity is not a religion that is respectful of LGBT people at all. I don't think I owe any respect to Christianity (or any religion) that has hate messages against LGBT people. The reason behind that is simple: It hates me. It almost treat me like less than a human being. I mean, why should I respect this:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ... neither fornicators ... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13"
You see... Christianity and the Bible hates me. Not only for being bisexual, but for being an unbeliever, too. How and why should I have to respect this bigotry and backwardness? Those aren't the only ones hateful and violent messages, but for this CMV, I will let at that.
Also, there's that too: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Essentially, the main reason why I have this view is because it doesn't makes sense to respect an ideology that doesn't respect me. It hates me. I can't really call it a good religion.
| 1,484,382,503
|
Hazeringx
|
dcetufb
|
dcetsyl
| 26
| 2
|
CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee.
The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her.
Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
So, let's say I agree.
Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies.
I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us?
|
>With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
Before we start talking about how Bernie could defeat Donald lets dispell the notion of democratic-socialism. What he describes as "socialism", socialism is not. He used Denmark as an example but the [Danish PM tried to explain to him that Denmark does not want to be associated with socialism](http://www.headlinepolitics.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-stop-lying-country/)
>nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
The US is already a liberal and free culture. Way more liberal than what we are here in Europe. And by liberal i mean open society that protects individual rights, industrial and free market economics and the rule of law. These principles have worked for the American people and they have made the US the one and only global power. Not regional but global.
The American people are deeply tied to this liberal tradition. Even conservatives are really classical liberals ( not all of them but a lot of them. It is the same with liberals. Not all of them are social democrats ). Still talking about individual rights and the rule of law etc. And in order to win an election you need to win not only the vote of one perticular group of people. You need to win the majority of the nation. There is **no way** that a conservative or a libertarian or a sensible liberal would vote for Bernie Sanders. And why is that ?
Socialism is fringe politics. His opponents in the Trump team would focus their campaign on promoting socialist failures ( and they would have plenty of material to work with ) from Cuba to Venezuela. I can already hear you say "yeah but what about Scandinavia ?".
So Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries are free market economics ( [they rank extremelly high on economic freedom](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) ). They can fund their welfare state for two reasons. One: the US pays for their defence. Two: they generate capital via the free market which is the only sensible way to generate enough money in order to spend on welfare.
So its simple. There is not way that the majority of Americans would ever vote for a self proclaimed socialist. The American way has proven to be successful and the American people understand that and thats why it won't be easy for them to abandon their liberal insitutions for a more centralized socialist way. And remember as i said before you need to win more than the socialists to win the general election. *Trump played the antiglobalization card in order to win the anti free market vote while portaying himself as a businessman to win the free market vote too.*
As far as what Trump did that Sanders and Hillary could not? Trump won the "flyover America". The people that don't care about the so called 1%. All they wanted was for their small communities to be industrious again.
On immigration Sanders has said that ["open borders are a Koch brothers scheme"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0). Is that enough to win the immigration issue voters ? No. Trump took the issue to a new level. There is not a chance that someone could have trumped Trump on immigration. He mobilized people like never before.
A Trump Sanders battle would have been an all populist race. Trump just played the populist card better. He won the moment you locked down the primaries.
|
Bloomberg would have run third party if it had been Sanders vs. Trump. Sane people split their vote between Bloomberg and Sanders, Trump still wins.
|
5nwnd4
|
CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee.
|
The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her.
Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture.
So, let's say I agree.
Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies.
I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us?
| 1,484,385,571
|
Cheetuhman
|
dcev90h
|
dcev7nk
| 17
| 12
|
CMV: Western countries shouldn't accept refugees because it is a lot cheaper to house them in secured areas of their country/neighboring country.
I'm talking mostly about refugees from iraq/syria because of the war going on there. There are of course valid reasons why western countries should accept refugees. For example: political refugees, lbgt people being prosecuted in their country etc...
I'd think that one could give a home to multiple refugees in secured areas of iraq and syria for the cost of housing one refugee in a western country, where the cost of living and the population density are a lot higher.
It seems unethical to house refugees in western countries, and give them almost special treatment over the many other refugees. We could have massive increases in aid to the middle east, and improve every refugees quality of life.
We could also fund jordan and perhaps even iran to accept more refugees.
Edit: i made a drawing: http://imgur.com/a/Gj7Qb
Edit2: to the people downvoting comments, please tell me why you are doing so.
Edit3: delta has been awarded, but feel free to keep the discussion going.
> *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!*
|
No, seriously, copy and paste a comment that actually does this, and then we can talk about why you think it does adress my issues.
|
Where in your sources does it say that 50% + 1 of the refugees are high-skill?
|
5nx88x
|
CMV: Western countries shouldn't accept refugees because it is a lot cheaper to house them in secured areas of their country/neighboring country.
|
I'm talking mostly about refugees from iraq/syria because of the war going on there. There are of course valid reasons why western countries should accept refugees. For example: political refugees, lbgt people being prosecuted in their country etc...
I'd think that one could give a home to multiple refugees in secured areas of iraq and syria for the cost of housing one refugee in a western country, where the cost of living and the population density are a lot higher.
It seems unethical to house refugees in western countries, and give them almost special treatment over the many other refugees. We could have massive increases in aid to the middle east, and improve every refugees quality of life.
We could also fund jordan and perhaps even iran to accept more refugees.
Edit: i made a drawing: http://imgur.com/a/Gj7Qb
Edit2: to the people downvoting comments, please tell me why you are doing so.
Edit3: delta has been awarded, but feel free to keep the discussion going.
> *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!*
| 1,484,397,264
|
Poppejans
|
dcfm317
|
dcfd1io
| 0
| -1
|
CMV: I should unsubscribe from r/The_Donald
I try to read and participate in both American political communities equally - for years, I would get all of my news from NPR on the way to my job as a construction worker. But I've been trying to change that in the past few years by paying attention to sources like Fox, Townhall and the like. I've found that generally, liberal biased sources jive with my larger and more logical ideas on how the world should be, but conservative sites are more reflective of my experience as a (very) lower class blue collar worker and "average" Midwestern American. I identify with liberal logic, but I identify with conservative skepticism and real-world focus, if that makes any sense.
I'm very new to Reddit, less than 3 or 4 months, and with the above in mind, I subscribed to r/The_Donald hoping it would help offset my subscription to r/politics and Reddit's general liberality (this is a word, yes?). Balance in everything and all that.
But there are only so many memes and trains and "cucks" and circle jerking I can handle before I just stop paying attention in a post, and that's mostly what I find in r/The_Donald. The Tucker Carlson AMA was good though. I have the same policy for any Reddit post; I get sick of upvoted pun comments pretty quickly.
Convince me to keep r/The_Donald on my list!
Disclosure: I voted absentee for HRC because I disagree with Trump's protean views on immigration, tax, etc. While I think many of the things he says and does are in poor taste, I think it's irresponsible to vote solely based on how much you like one candidate or another.
|
I never subscribed, but I went to The_Donald pretty regularly for a week or two after the election as part of a genuine effort to try and understand the opposition. Supporting Donald Trump is a such a dangerous irrational position that I have to know *why* people could have voted for him. I needed to know what people are thinking. I had to try to understand them.
I stopped going to The_Donald because it's a wasteland and I mean that in a pretty literal sense. It's a no-mans land of up-voting robots. Posts on there regularly get 20k+ votes and only 40 comments. For "the most active subreddit" almost nobody's there saying anything.
This is a CMV so the opinion that I want you to change is this:
*Do not unsubscribe from The_Donald*, **GET BANNED**.
Get banned! Do it. Post something mild, something tame and *innocuous* in the comments that is not rabid unquestioning support for Donald and get banned! Just do it. Fuck The_Donald. You don't have to be rude or harsh. Just make a vague allusion to the ridiculous double-standards of free speech, Trump's myriad of lies, the silliness of attacking Megan Kelly who was a dyed in the red conservative all her life but had the misfortune of being a woman near Trump, or any other of a thousand different equally preposterous axioms of The_Donald.
Don't unsubscribe, **GET BANNED**. Wear it like a badge of honor.
|
I think the memes and puns will always be a major part of /r/the_donald, so it becomes a question of "is searching for quality posts/comments worth tolerating the joke stuff?" Because with the large amount of activity on the subreddit, it means /r/the_donald has a ton of jokes but is also good at shining a light on stories that many left-leaning media outlets miss or ignore.
What I might also suggest is checking out other right-leaning subreddits (such as /r/Conservative and /r/Republican for general news, or /r/AskTrumpSupporters and /r/AskThe_Donald if you want discussion/Q&As). Those may provide the perspective you're interested in with less of the memes and puns.
|
5nxjyw
|
CMV: I should unsubscribe from r/The_Donald
|
I try to read and participate in both American political communities equally - for years, I would get all of my news from NPR on the way to my job as a construction worker. But I've been trying to change that in the past few years by paying attention to sources like Fox, Townhall and the like. I've found that generally, liberal biased sources jive with my larger and more logical ideas on how the world should be, but conservative sites are more reflective of my experience as a (very) lower class blue collar worker and "average" Midwestern American. I identify with liberal logic, but I identify with conservative skepticism and real-world focus, if that makes any sense.
I'm very new to Reddit, less than 3 or 4 months, and with the above in mind, I subscribed to r/The_Donald hoping it would help offset my subscription to r/politics and Reddit's general liberality (this is a word, yes?). Balance in everything and all that.
But there are only so many memes and trains and "cucks" and circle jerking I can handle before I just stop paying attention in a post, and that's mostly what I find in r/The_Donald. The Tucker Carlson AMA was good though. I have the same policy for any Reddit post; I get sick of upvoted pun comments pretty quickly.
Convince me to keep r/The_Donald on my list!
Disclosure: I voted absentee for HRC because I disagree with Trump's protean views on immigration, tax, etc. While I think many of the things he says and does are in poor taste, I think it's irresponsible to vote solely based on how much you like one candidate or another.
| 1,484,402,562
|
FaulmanRhodes
|
dcf4j8l
|
dcf1ysp
| 25
| 14
|
CMV: My friend think AI assisted music will destroy creativity. I think it's gonna be the opposite, everyone will have access to the gift of music.
I've seen it multiple times, this sort of luddite behavior. For example, people are already saying sampling is just stealing. While it may be true, some people use it very well and skillfully to create something new. It has also made things easier for many people. I've studied a bit of music history and rap wouldn't exist or wouldn't be the same without sampling.
I think the purpose of technology is to make things easier, less tedious, but in my opinion we live in a society where we value hard work instead of smart work... We already see it in school, cheating is considered illegal... I think it's just another way to get to your goal, a risky one and not the most practical one, but when you're out of option, you should consider it.
As for my studies, I love computers and I love making music, so I've enrolled in a course where they both teach a bit of computer science and programming along with music courses such as music theory and music making on computer.
My dream project would be to create some sort of AI that would instantly write a song and make it better and more unique every time someone press the button, because it would learn from the songs it has made, and also songs of other instance of the same AI has made. Of course I'm still in my first year of study so I'm nowhere near that, but I've already begun working on it, for now you can input a melody and it harmonize it for you, respecting different rules of music theory around the world.
In the near future, many people will lose their job because robots do it better and cheaper, so I hope that with my work, I will be able to give them something to do something meaningful. It will create, hopefully, a whole new generation of music maker, a bit assisted yes, but as I stated before, sampling was considered cheating by some people, but many have used sampling in such way that they have create something new out of that technology. Maybe the same will happen to AI assisted music?
So yeah, overall, I think that if robots assisted us in making music, it would create new genres, create new skill, and give the gift of music to everyon, my friends who are "only" studying music think it's gonna destroy music, and that it would be cheating to make music with the assistance of an AI.
|
It won't destroy creativity, but obviously pressing a button and getting music out of it isn't creative. It's just having something else create for you. The creativity was on the part of whoever made that program. And it's also not ... imaginative in the way that people associate with creativity in the context of artistic pursuits.
Music is also in part about bending and breaking rules, surprising the audience. AI(the kind we have at the moment) mostly creates music by rules(syntax/algorithm or whatever) such that most music it will make will likely be fairly bland, lacking in nuance and character, without human input.
I don't think it's going to give everyone the gift of music. The program that creates music will just create the same kind of music for whoever has it, and I think people would quickly bore of that type of music.
Perhaps it'll get more advanced eventually, it's speculation whether or not we're going to be capable of creating AI that can be expressive in the way a human can, but I doubt in the near future AI will come anywhere close to obsoleting human-made music. It may aid in their efforts, but that's already happening to some extent.
|
The problem with A.I. creativity is: What do we program TO?
That is, how do we tell the program "This melody is better than that melody, so make things more like this and less like that?" It's gotta learn, sure, but.... learn what?
That has got to either service someone's idiosyncratic ear or to play to some sort of mass appeal. Playing to mass appeal is exactly not creative, so it can't do what you want.
Playing to a person's individual ear is the only way I see this working out... individual users can input a battery of songs they like and a new song based on them pops out. The problem with that is... what do you do with it now? You've made something for yourself, and you can listen to it, but who else cares?
There's two things about sampling that make it an imperfect metaphor. One is that it came up to be associated with DJ culture, DJ meaning someone who scratches and mixes. There's a level of technical skill and performativity involved in that kind of DJing that has no analogue I can picture with AI music.
Second, even at its VERY best (and speaking as someone who is an avid fan of old-school hip-hop and EDM), sampled music always has had and always will have an element of novelty. What I mean by that is, there's a pleasure in seeing something you explicitly recognize repurposed to a new context in a clever way. Even if you don't recognize it, there's the fun of knowing this loop came from somewhere totally different. I can see some uses of this with AI ("Look how hilarious it is when I train it on both Led Zepplin and Frank Sinatra!") but the end results would be too ambiguously connected to the source material to give that same kind of pleasure.
|
5nym0o
|
CMV: My friend think AI assisted music will destroy creativity. I think it's gonna be the opposite, everyone will have access to the gift of music.
|
I've seen it multiple times, this sort of luddite behavior. For example, people are already saying sampling is just stealing. While it may be true, some people use it very well and skillfully to create something new. It has also made things easier for many people. I've studied a bit of music history and rap wouldn't exist or wouldn't be the same without sampling.
I think the purpose of technology is to make things easier, less tedious, but in my opinion we live in a society where we value hard work instead of smart work... We already see it in school, cheating is considered illegal... I think it's just another way to get to your goal, a risky one and not the most practical one, but when you're out of option, you should consider it.
As for my studies, I love computers and I love making music, so I've enrolled in a course where they both teach a bit of computer science and programming along with music courses such as music theory and music making on computer.
My dream project would be to create some sort of AI that would instantly write a song and make it better and more unique every time someone press the button, because it would learn from the songs it has made, and also songs of other instance of the same AI has made. Of course I'm still in my first year of study so I'm nowhere near that, but I've already begun working on it, for now you can input a melody and it harmonize it for you, respecting different rules of music theory around the world.
In the near future, many people will lose their job because robots do it better and cheaper, so I hope that with my work, I will be able to give them something to do something meaningful. It will create, hopefully, a whole new generation of music maker, a bit assisted yes, but as I stated before, sampling was considered cheating by some people, but many have used sampling in such way that they have create something new out of that technology. Maybe the same will happen to AI assisted music?
So yeah, overall, I think that if robots assisted us in making music, it would create new genres, create new skill, and give the gift of music to everyon, my friends who are "only" studying music think it's gonna destroy music, and that it would be cheating to make music with the assistance of an AI.
| 1,484,415,506
|
[deleted]
|
dcfb09u
|
dcfadzc
| 3
| 0
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 9